Hitch

I like this idea. You don't even have to announce it. Just do it and lower prices. Cut the fat, get the farm, go again, reward the fans during the process. I don't think fans would sign up for it though. We've seen it constantly for the past 24 hours. It's still very much the mindset of - we're the Boston Red Sox, we should be outspending everyone. Despite being 4th in revenue and 4 further back in terms of overall wealth. Hell, we've got MVP quoting an actor playing JH in a fictional meeting, from a movie, to back up his dislike of the man. 🫣 You're not going to get pragmatism from a lot of fans it would appear.

1) this is ridiculous. He literally refused to play a position. You sound like a ten year old still pining over his favourite player and the hell with facts. 2) if that's the way you want to take it, knock yourself out. I suppose it has to be the way you take it as you never want to respond to any of the question or details around this as you just want to generalise and have a good moan and say - Owners bad. Owners cheap. 3) no and from you we'll hear of no context around it either. See point 2. Also I don't know why we should be expecting them to be 100% in the top 5 spenders when we're 4th in revenue and also behind Cohen, the Rogers family, Illlitch family, and Lerner family in wealth (none of which are included in the 3 turnovers higher than us). In combined revenue and personal wealth, the Sox are the 8th wealthiest team. Sorry if pointing this out and asking this questions hurts your feelings, but why should they be outspending these teams again?

I have to ask this as you've mentioned it a few times - you know that John Henry didn't actually appear at the end right? That it was an actor? And it was a fictional portrayal of a conversation that never happened? Henry might have thought similar or said it in another context, but that's a fictionalisation.

And it's often a case that teams just don't line up. Getting a 3rd team involved is easy to say, harder to pull off. And as always, teams value their own players higher, with both the Royals and Sox being surprised that Ragans for Duran is the deal (too high for Royals - why every not? from the Sox). As you say, things tend to give when injuries, loss of form, desperation kicks in. We're not there on any of those. I'd be perfectly happy keeping Duran as long as it doesn't stop them making other moves (which it admittedly might)

Oh come on man. Devers is not here because he twice refused to help the team and challenged the entire organisation. The second of which came when we badly needed a first baseman after ours had a serious injury. He then happily played it at another organisation. He threw his teammates under the bus. What happened in your mind? The ownership were bullied into giving him the contract? And then just wanted out from Day 1? You know how crazy that sounds right? Especially up against Devers' ACTUAL actions? I'll ignore the ******* part of your reply. Most people have no idea how business works at this level. That's not a criticism, why would most people? It's a world 99% of the population never come in to contact with. It's not easy to become a billionaire after all. But when people refuse to even listen to basic facts especially when the same conversations recycle time and time again here, it just feels like some people seem absolutely determined to not learn a thing/change their mind along the way. We're 4th in revenue (possibly about to go lower), up against teams that have $8billion TV deals (locked in - no risk, no market worries), and we are much further down the scale when it comes to individual wealth of owners, yet it's demanded that they reach the levels of investment of these other organisations. Why? Because just saying "we're the Boston Red Sox" is just not going to cut it in the modern world unfortunately. And what level of profit is acceptable for these people that have brought success to a town that hadn't had any in decades (baseball wise)? What level of risk is acceptable? Do people want lower ticket prices, or lower payroll? Few fans bother to think of these things they just want their favourite players signed. But the ones that do think about these things but cast them aside in the name of confirmation bias is who I have the biggest issue with. The ones that seem desperate for anything to grasp onto to complain about ownership, no matter how ridiculous - 1 year arb deals, anyone? Look I totally get this. I'm with you. I want them to spend more as well. But I also want us to be run well, and not just throw bad money away on contracts that will hurt us soon, just so we can say we're spending. I also completely understand the rational behind not spending big on players when we are struggling with sunken contracts and a bad team. And I actually think that is why we did pull back. We spent ourselves into trouble the past 5/6 years ago and let the wrong people go. As I say ad nauseum, I expect us to spend now. If we don't I'll be as vocal as anyone* because they need to strike now, and make up for the mistakes. Now is the time and they can afford extra dollar cost as long as we don't too often damage out draft prospects. *Well not as vocal as Fred.

Then we're having different conversations. My point there is that I'd love the Dodgers supposed near billon dollar revenue so that we can invest more in that area (more than anyone preferably). We are behind other teams in what we draft and develop in international markets I'd argue. That all said, the Sox seem to be going down different routes to scouts on the ground. If this works or no is sot be seen, but I'm not hopeful.

It doesn't really matter if he's worth more to another team or not. That team might not want to give up the piece that's more valuable to us. That's the rub.

Which is all well and good if that was the point being made. I have clarified three times now.

Yes, thanks for making the point I've made twice already. The point is that, this has to stay stable and there is no guarantee. The Dodgers are getting $8billon from an entertainment conglomerate.

They gave a pitcher who hadn't yet shown he could pitch a season as a starter without limitations $30m (give or take) for 6 years. It is a stretch, no. Is it a long/big contract? Yes. Same for Anthony. I didn't say they were stretching themselves, I said they've given out long contracts. I see you missed out Devers $300m. And obviously they committed $40m a year x 3 to Bregman. They gave Story $120m, Extended Sale, gave big contracts to Hanley and Pablo. Almost all the big contracts they've handed out haven't worked out, but still they get hammered for not signing aging players to long deals. And when they don't work out the same fans complaining they aren't spending are there to complain for making stupid investments. And so the circle-jerk continues.

I know, That was the whole point of my post.

If this is what you're basing your replies to me off you've misunderstood my point. Above is a given. Though it doesn't mean that this equals the same outcome of course.

It is not irrelevant. Not even in the slightest and is not the way a business is run, If you're locked into 8 BILLION for 25 years, it affords you the freedom of knowing you have a baseline revenue level and can predict and plan and spend off that guarantee. The Red Sox revenues vary, just two years earlier they took around 15-18% less than this year - 2024: $574M (Forbes estimates vary slightly) 2023: $513M 2022: $479M 2021: $479M 2020: $152M (Pandemic impact) A big chunk of the Red Sox revenue is also from themselves seeing as FSG own NESN. A risk the Dodgers do not have. No one is forced to take into account any context, but it certainly doesn't help anyone to ignore it. People have an idea of our businesses are run. They're almost always wrong and not availed (or want to be) with the facts in my experience.

LAD are almost up to a billion in revenue according to Forbes (official numbers for '25 still to come). They're getting £320m a year in revenue form the TV deal alone. And that is locked in for 25 years. Mark Walter is also worth double Henry and a lot more cash rich. These are the reasons that their payroll can be as high as they want it to be and not worry. They're locked into safety. The Red Sox's TV deal is with themselves. I just wish people would take some context into their thinking and actually go a bit deeper than just Red Sox owners = cheap. My point about International scouting/development is not that we match LAD's, I don't know how much they put in, but that I wish we had their revenue streams to put into that area, and payroll issues would be less of a problem in general. The lifeblood of every single organisation is its scouting and development.

In a discussion last week someone said (I think it was MVP) that we had been psychologically scarred by ownership. I though it was true then, and I think it even more true when I read things like this. (not having a go at you here Moon - this is a regular take from lots of people) Lester was the start, Mookie was the pinnacle. Now everything is seen through that lens - the owners are cheap, they won't want long contracts. But they've done long contracts. We just give our starting pitcher and first year outfielder big ones. We gave an aging 3rd baseman one. We gave our 3rd baseman one. A huge one that will likely not age well at all. Story, Sale, and others that were disasters for us. But this idea that they dumped Devers is far fetched for me. If he agreed to move to 1st, he'd still be here now. Instead he acted like a f***ing child and threw his teammates under the bus (after we suffered a devastating injury), before immediately declaring he'd play wherever his new team wanted him to play. Whatever about the way we approached it - he was in control of his own actions and he acted like a piece of s***. It wasn't about dumping the contract because it was $300 (this is just the scarring talking - they wouldn't have given him the damn thing if they wanted to dump it within a year), it's because the highest paid player in Red Sox history was saying a big FU to management and ownership. And when that happens, you cut the cancer out not let it grow and fester. That people want to immediately tie it to cheapness is the surest sign confirmation bias I've seen on here.

As do mostly every player in the league in arbs. Stop looking for reasons to be annoyed.

Yes, how do these teams with turnovers that dwarf the rest of the league do it? It's a mystery isn't it? 🤔 The Dodgers signed a TV deal that gives them more/around the same in revenue as half the teams in the league! It would certainly be nice to have the Dodgers wealth to put into development and international scouting.

Feels like it's coming. It'll be fine for two but then it'll be another contract weighing down the roster.

It really does matter.

Correct. This idea that we can just send these guys away and only eat half if we want to is for the birds. I am more than happy our 4 outfielders cycling around the position and DH.

Jesus! That is quite the list of injuries in one play!

Virtually every team checks in with every free agent and multiple trade candidates. That you're getting worked up by this or annoyed by the asinine 'interest kings' tag is on you.

Marino Pepén was the one to make that report. And I can't stress how full of s*** this man is.

They'd need to defer a lot.

Seeing as we didn't put an offer in for him, clearly not.