Red Sox Roundup, Oct 12: Offseason Questions, Injury Concerns, Non-Tender Risks

[Talk Sox]

Here is some of the latest Red Sox analysis from around the internet. The pieces cover offseason challenges, the 2026 season's mixed performance, potential non-tender candidates like Duran and others, medical staff challenges with Crochet and Anthony, and David Ortiz's critique of the Yankees' culture.

• Five questions Red Sox must address this offseason (MLB.com). Notes five key offseason challenges for the 2026 Red Sox, including injuries to Anthony and Crochet, the need for power-hitting, the uncertain future of Duran, and the potential of Mead, who suffered a wrist fracture shortly after his July 25 acquisition.
• Red Sox point-counterpoint: Was 2026 season a success or failure? (Boston Herald $$$). Argues that the 2026 Red Sox season was neither a success nor a failure, highlighting a dramatic second-half turnaround and a postseason exit, while noting the team’s lowest-scoring season since 2014 and concerns over addressing offensive weaknesses.
• Red Sox mailbag: Who is most at risk of being non-tendered this offseason? (Boston Herald $$$). Notes that the Red Sox face roster decisions this offseason, identifying players like Raymond Burgos, Jedixson Paez, Tsung-Che Cheng, and Eduardo Rivera as potential non-tender candidates, while also discussing the possibility of non-tendering or trading Jarren Duran to free up payroll for a big bat.
• Some Things I Think I Think: Full review of Red Sox’ training, medical staff needed (MassLive). Notes that diagnosing injuries remains an inexact science, citing setbacks involving pitchers Crochet and Anthony as examples of the challenges faced by the Red Sox' training and medical staff.
• Red Sox Legend David Ortiz Calls Out Yankees in Way New York Fans Can't Disagree With (NESN). Argues that David Ortiz attributes the Yankees' recent struggles to a lack of team culture, noting that the Yankees no longer have the same identity that once made them dominant, while the Red Sox have been more successful in recent years.

[JoeBrady]

On 10/12/2026 at 8:54 AM, Talk Sox said:

while the Red Sox have been more successful in recent years.

In what way?

[mvp 78]

37 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

In what way?

More WS in past 25 years. 4 times as many in fact. 

[JoeBrady]

17 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

More WS in past 25 years. 4 times as many in fact. 

The article mentioned 'recent'.  This century (with JH), we're the best in the game.  The past 8 years, the NYY have been better.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

16 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

The article mentioned 'recent'.  This century (with JH), we're the best in the game.  The past 8 years, the NYY have been better.

Since 2019 the Red Sox business model is to stop spending big money on longterm contracts for elite position players. The Yankees never stop spending because they are never rebuilding and are always all-in trying to win every single year. 

Boston front office and ownership defenders will point to Story and Yoshida, which will be remembered as overall failures by an inexperienced CBO and the Devers' contract, which was dumped as soon as a new CBO could find an excuse. But even those signings are suspected by some in the industry as mere displays to mollify a thirsty fanbase.

[mvp 78]

2 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

The article mentioned 'recent'.  This century (with JH), we're the best in the game.  The past 8 years, the NYY have been better.

The goal is a WS championship not just to reach the playoffs. Recently, both teams have been failures. 

[notin]

On 10/14/2026 at 8:14 AM, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Since 2019 the Red Sox business model is to stop spending big money on longterm contracts for elite position players. The Yankees never stop spending because they are never rebuilding and are always all-in trying to win every single year. 

Boston front office and ownership defenders will point to Story and Yoshida, which will be remembered as overall failures by an inexperienced CBO and the Devers' contract, which was dumped as soon as a new CBO could find an excuse. But even those signings are suspected by some in the industry as mere displays to mollify a thirsty fanbase.

All free agent contracts are to mollify a thirsty fanbase…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

10 hours ago, notin said:

All free agent contracts are to mollify a thirsty fanbase…

I wouldn't say "all." 

I doubt many parched fans bellied up to the bar and gasped, "Gimme a shot of Paxton or Hendriks or Giolito or Sandoval... and hit me in the head with that bat and put me in a coma, then wake me up when I can sip it in about a year-and-a-half to two years from now."

[JoeBrady]

On 10/14/2026 at 11:32 AM, mvp 78 said:

The goal is a WS championship not just to reach the playoffs. Recently, both teams have been failures. 

That's not really a thing for me.  In the olde days, when the NYY/RS were easily the two largest spending teams, and the playoffs were a lot smaller, then the WS was definitely the goal.  Now, not only are both teams no longer the spending behemoth, you have to win 2-3 rounds of playoffs just to get to the WS.

[drewski6]

On 10/14/2026 at 9:14 AM, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Since 2019 the Red Sox business model is to stop spending big money on longterm contracts for elite position players. The Yankees never stop spending because they are never rebuilding and are always all-in trying to win every single year. 

Boston front office and ownership defenders will point to Story and Yoshida, which will be remembered as overall failures by an inexperienced CBO and the Devers' contract, which was dumped as soon as a new CBO could find an excuse. But even those signings are suspected by some in the industry as mere displays to mollify a thirsty fanbase.

I honestly dont mind pausing the big spending on longterm contracts for elite players.  Like if you want to first develop a core of homegrowns.  But there must come a time where you shift from worrying about 4-5 years down the line, and start be willing to sign a deal that may overstay its welcome or trade a promising prospect.

I like to say that if you are always planning for tomorrow, tomorrow never comes.  We are 5-7 years into a rebuild, depending on when you consider it started.  Now that doesnt necessarily mean we are at the crossroads where its time to focus on the present.  But if we are not, it does mean that the previous 7 years have failed because we should be turning a corner.  

And if we instead of building for the future five years ago were trying to straddle the buy and sell , like we've kinda made a habit of doing, that might be why we are kind of perpetually stuck in limbo as not quite a competitor but not fully in a rebuild.

[drewski6]

11 hours ago, notin said:

All free agent contracts are to mollify a thirsty fanbase…

In todays cheap owner, profit seeking MLB - as if.  Its the opposite.  Teams arent trying hard enough to beat each other, they are all trying to find the magic balance between low cost and fan disinterest thats going to max profits.

Owners arent buying teams to make fanbases happy, they are doing it to take away something we all enjoy and make it a pet investment.

[drewski6]

26 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

That's not really a thing for me.  In the olde days, when the NYY/RS were easily the two largest spending teams, and the playoffs were a lot smaller, then the WS was definitely the goal.  Now, not only are both teams no longer the spending behemoth, you have to win 2-3 rounds of playoffs just to get to the WS.

Yes we know you arent interested in building great teams that win championships.  

[NHNative]

40 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

In todays cheap owner, profit seeking MLB - as if.  Its the opposite.  Teams arent trying hard enough to beat each other, they are all trying to find the magic balance between low cost and fan disinterest thats going to max profits.

Owners arent buying teams to make fanbases happy, they are doing it to take away something we all enjoy and make it a pet investment.

This is certainly the case for some, but I don't think all...human nature.

[notin]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

In todays cheap owner, profit seeking MLB - as if.  Its the opposite.  Teams arent trying hard enough to beat each other, they are all trying to find the magic balance between low cost and fan disinterest thats going to max profits.

Owners arent buying teams to make fanbases happy, they are doing it to take away something we all enjoy and make it a pet investment.

For the ones that collect revenue-sharing, absolutely.  They really just prefer the handout.

But plenty of teams are most definitely trying to build competitive teams; it’s just harder to do when you’re actually building the team as opposed to those of us on the sidelines making suggestions.  But I see fans say things like “if the Sox were trying to be competitive, they’d have signed Player X” as if that’s the only criterion that competitiveness hinges on.   Really what that does is prove (or maybe support) my longstanding opinion that free agency is PR.  Fans think teams are profit-driven, soulless corporate entities that prioritize bottom lines over won-loss record.  The reality is plenty of them understand won-loss records influence bottom lines. They didn’t get to be billionaires by not understanding the value in producing a product customers want.

That your belief is ownership are intentionally taking away your enjoyment for profit’s sake strikes me as ridiculous, but also oddly quite common.  After all, it was essentially the plot of the movie Major League.  But it has created the image that teams are only trying if they spend .  Anyone not spending is not trying, quite often with caveats about Player X… 

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, drewski6 said:

Yes we know you arent interested in building great teams that win championships.  

Nonsense.  Weren't you wrong enough yesterday that you need to be wrong again today?  Just because I believe in a 1-9 lineup over a single big bopper lineup doesn't make either of us right or wrong.  Just because I believe that OBP trumps HRs doesn't make either of us right or wrong (I'm right, but I'm throwing you a bone).  Just because I believe that we need an ace, and you believe that we need a clean-up hitter, doesn't make either of us right or wrong

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

That's not really a thing for me.  In the olde days, when the NYY/RS were easily the two largest spending teams, and the playoffs were a lot smaller, then the WS was definitely the goal.  Now, not only are both teams no longer the spending behemoth, you have to win 2-3 rounds of playoffs just to get to the WS.

You had to win 2 rounds of playoffs back in 04 too. There's no real difference now except your complacency. 

[JoeBrady]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

But plenty of teams are most definitely trying to build competitive teams; it’s just harder to do when you’re actually building the team as opposed to those of us on the sidelines making suggestions.

No doubt in my mind that this is correct.  I'd wager that most, if not all, owners buy for the same reason  people collect coins, baseball cards, wine, etc.  You love the hobby AND you hope to make money..  But the bottom-15 revenue teams will not out-perform the top-15 revenue teams.  I'd say that there are only 4-5 teams that don't even try.  Others try but are either poorly run, or lack the resources to compete at a higher level.

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, JoeBrady said:

No doubt in my mind that this is correct.  I'd wager that most, if not all, owners buy for the same reason  people collect coins, baseball cards, wine, etc.  You love the hobby AND you hope to make money..  But the bottom-15 revenue teams will not out-perform the top-15 revenue teams.  I'd say that there are only 4-5 teams that don't even try.  Others try but are either poorly run, or lack the resources to compete at a higher level.

Per David Rubenstein:
 

"A lot of my friends were buying teams, and I realized they're making money. They're making more money than I'm making in private equity."

 

It has NOTHING to do with "hoping to make money." These owners are making money hand over fist, especially in baseball where you are guaranteed money from rich teams. You don't even have to sell tickets to make money as an MLB owner now. 

[JoeBrady]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

Per David Rubenstein:
 

"A lot of my friends were buying teams, and I realized they're making money. They're making more money than I'm making in private equity."

 

It has NOTHING to do with "hoping to make money." These owners are making money hand over fist, especially in baseball where you are guaranteed money from rich teams. You don't even have to sell tickets to make money as an MLB owner now. 

He was born in Baltimore and bought a team in Baltimore.  You think maybe that was related?  His Wiki page says he is a life-long Orioles fan.  I'm pretty sure he'll make money, but I am almost positive that he bought the team because it was some sort of childhood dream.

[mvp 78]

13 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

He was born in Baltimore and bought a team in Baltimore.  You think maybe that was related?  His Wiki page says he is a life-long Orioles fan.  I'm pretty sure he'll make money, but I am almost positive that he bought the team because it was some sort of childhood dream.

He bought it because he wants to make a bunch of money. You said it's a hobby and that they "hope" to make money. There is no "hope. They absolutely KNOW they will come out ahead. He was just waiting for his opportunity. 

Was buying the O's his boyhood dream or was that owning the Magna Carta, a signed copy of the Emancipation Proclamation, being Vice Chair at the LIncoln Center for Performing Arts, being on the board at the Smithsonian where he donated 22M towards giant pandas, founding the Carlyle Group, being on the Council of Foreign Relations, advising the President or the 100M+ he's spent on historic preservation? To me, it seems like buying the O's is at the end of a long list of things in his collection, but one that is guaranteed to make money.  

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

Nonsense.  Weren't you wrong enough yesterday that you need to be wrong again today?  Just because I believe in a 1-9 lineup over a single big bopper lineup doesn't make either of us right or wrong.  Just because I believe that OBP trumps HRs doesn't make either of us right or wrong (I'm right, but I'm throwing you a bone).  Just because I believe that we need an ace, and you believe that we need a clean-up hitter, doesn't make either of us right or wrong

Okay, someone said they wanted to win championships, and you said thats not really a thing for you.  Thats pretty complacent.  Additionally, when asked how you became so sure that your OBP above all approach and never swing at balls philosophy came to be, you showed an extremely superficial analysis.  You consistently show a lack of understanding on approaches, what batters think at the plate, the dance of an at-bat.  

The truth is that you consistently respond to thoughtful posts that show how the game has changed and OBP isnt it anymore.  How the red sox needed the most walks+hits in the majors to score a run.  How our OBP and K rates were fine, but our overall runs scored wasnt - and how it was so clearly slug as the missing ingredient....You just declare that you are right, all we need to be is top 15 in OBP , and then you start talking about bad bosses you had and how youve had to navigate it at work.  

[drewski6]

3 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

No doubt in my mind that this is correct.  I'd wager that most, if not all, owners buy for the same reason  people collect coins, baseball cards, wine, etc.  You love the hobby AND you hope to make money..  But the bottom-15 revenue teams will not out-perform the top-15 revenue teams.  I'd say that there are only 4-5 teams that don't even try.  Others try but are either poorly run, or lack the resources to compete at a higher level.

I was just reading an article about how minds that work like this, develop rules/hard conclusions and run everything by those , are not great minds.

Smart people are always second guessing themselves.  

[drewski6]

38 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

He bought it because he wants to make a bunch of money. You said it's a hobby and that they "hope" to make money. There is no "hope. They absolutely KNOW they will come out ahead. He was just waiting for his opportunity. 

Was buying the O's his boyhood dream or was that owning the Magna Carta, a signed copy of the Emancipation Proclamation, being Vice Chair at the LIncoln Center for Performing Arts, being on the board at the Smithsonian where he donated 22M towards giant pandas, founding the Carlyle Group, being on the Council of Foreign Relations, advising the President or the 100M+ he's spent on historic preservation? To me, it seems like buying the O's is at the end of a long list of things in his collection, but one that is guaranteed to make money.  

Its gross.  Billionaires just want to collect things for status.  I was reading an article on the psychology behind it and its mostly about how possession creates faux validation.  This is why autocrats are alwasy stealing trophies and certain powerful people obsess over things like nobel peace prizes.

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

I was just reading an article about how minds that work like this, develop rules/hard conclusions and run everything by those , are not great minds.

Smart people are always second guessing themselves.  

You are calling out too many people on here with this opinion! 💃

[mvp 78]

1 minute ago, drewski6 said:

Its gross.  Billionaires just want to collect things for status.  I was reading an article on the psychology behind it and its mostly about how possession creates faux validation.  This is why autocrats are alwasy stealing trophies and certain powerful people obsess over things like nobel peace prizes.

It was hilarious that Putin pocketed that SB ring from Kraft. That was one of the first indications to me that something was up with Kraft. I was completely done with him by the time he was putting Myra's initials on the jerseys while chasing any young blonde in the vicinity. 

[drewski6]

5 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

You are calling out too many people on here with this opinion! 💃

I think that most of us demonstrate an ability to take in new information and adjust.  

[drewski6]

Just now, mvp 78 said:

It was hilarious that Putin pocketed that SB ring from Kraft. That was one of the first indications to me that something was up with Kraft. I was completely done with him by the time he was putting Myra's initials on the jerseys while chasing any young blonde in the vicinity. 

Yup. There are plenty of articles on how the rich and powerful possess objects through any means necessary because they thirst after legitimacy.

[mvp 78]

4 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

I think that most of us demonstrate an ability to take in new information and adjust.  

Maybe I've just been on here too long...

[JoeBrady]

7 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Okay, someone said they wanted to win championships, and you said thats not really a thing for you.  Thats pretty complacent.

No, but I can understand the confusion.  What I said, or meant to say, is that winning a championship is more difficult that it once was.  We're in a division where we are 3rd in payroll.  Assuming we make the playoffs, we have a 1:12 of winning the WS, and probably less.  Assuming we finish 1st, there is a 1:3 chance that we have to win 4 series.  Even if we are one of the two teams with a bye, we have to win 3 series.

So even in a very good year, we probably have a 1:8 chance of winning a WS.

 

[drewski6]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Maybe I've just been on here too long...

Yeah, but you are putting yourself in a grouping where you dont belong.  Be kinder to yourself.

It is well proven that mediocre minds make instant conclusions that they hold as "always true", and then approach thought provoking nuanced topics through the lens of such conclusions.

This allows them to shut down thought provoking debate via regurgitating definitive conclusions that they have drawn.