Hitch

At least you've stopped stating your opinion is a fact. Growth.

This crying about us not signing a FA yet is so ridiculous. There's been three deals over 3 years so far. In the whole of the MLB. The only one we've really missed out on is Alonso and our offer showed we weren't particularly sold on him.

Not to mention both Boras and Soto said after the event, that the Red Sox went big on him and offered big. They literally have no reason to lie about this. Yet people will still happily ignore this so they can sound off.

I would be very surprised if we are looking to go within a few million of the 3rd tax level by giving him $40m a year.

Forever bewildering how few people know the meaning of the word 'fact'.

Yay, just about. The rotation is quite a bit better. The line up is better. Bullpen is worse.

Why do you keep going with this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere bar by you.

Yeah it was always going to sting a little with Bogey, but I'd have rather we kept him at higher rate than Story and actually have him in the team (unlike Story outside of this past year) and have his leadership around - I don't think the Devers situation happens if he's here for example. But yeah, when the Padres offer comes in - say goodbye. Lester and Mookie are the big ones. Lester is when this ownership started getting weird for me. 2013 happens after they'd just dumped Gonzalez, Crawford et al, then signed a load of veterans to short term deals and bang - WS. All of a sudden long term deals are out and we can win with less risk. Then they spend the next two years in the basement, so revert to going big which leads to '18. Then we give up on that, and go back to small ball as they clearly felt burned by the Price contract, Sale extension and others, and decided to trade away a generational talent in Mookie just to clear salary space. But after another spell of mediocrity they then sign Story and Yoshida to long term deals (both of which has been a disaster so far) and now they appear hesitant to go long with anyone again (apart from youth). Their thinking just seems to be cyclical and not particualry connected. With the payroll we should be there or thereabouts every year. Yet we're boom or bust mainly with an in-between season here and there. My biggest beef with this ownership is that they think they're too smart by half (they might be right in general) and want to win in a smart way to show the baseball world just how clever they are (which is extremely). But you look at the history since '13 and honestly, it doesn't look particularly joined up and seems to veer wildly between philosophies/directions of travel. Sacking the GM every 3/4 years hardly helps.

Blanket statements like your second paragraph tend ignore all and any context however, so there is that. But I do firmly agree with your point that they have done damage to the psyche of the fanbase with trading away players - though I contend Mookie was the one. I'd guess half the fan base is glad Devers is gone, especially in light of his behaviour But Lester and Bogey certainly hurt as well, especially in comparison to what the money was spent on instead (and then following pull back of spending). In terms of your first paragraph, I am becoming increasingly concerned that Rafaela is on his way back to 2nd and Mayer takes 3rd. I don't hate it if they then go out and get a true pitching 1B. But I don't see that happening either.... Time will tell I guess.

The charity donations comment (as with local infrastructure investment) was a comment on none of us really knowing their overall wealth and what they're spending (outside of the RS) seeing as it was (and continues to be) brought up. Regardless it is a non point in relation to what was I think a pretty comprehensive post on their ownership and our position. You seem to have little desire to engage with the other points I made and instead seem absolutely determined to believe/have made your mind up that (very recent) history means nothing and that they are just cheap and bad owners now. That's your prerogative of course and you're certainly not alone. I think you're all wrong, whilst understanding that it may be me that is so. With that I wish you all a Happy New Year folks. I am going to go and get merry one last time in '25. I look forward to wasting hours and days of my life with you all again next year.

I included a point about this in my original post, but it was convoluted and I couldn't find a way I was happy with phrasing it to get my point across so I deleted it. But yes, there is an expectancy from fans that people should just fund their dreams and hopes through their sports team. Not the way the world works unfortunately. But again, that said, an expected level on investment in regards to income is not unreasonable and there are some terrible owners out there. But where that line is can be harder to judge, and fans are not known for their reasonable natures.

Of course, and doesn't include property tax, charity donations and local infrastructure investment and a myriad of other things. The point of the post is not to point out that they are paupers, though they are only very wealthy through assets not cash, but to point out it is hypocritical not to expect these guys to make money on their investment, and more importantly that they have other restraints at least 3 other organisations do not, and that sensible running of the organisation is far superior to the running of it based off often rabid and hysterical fandom demands. None of that is to say that fans shouldn't expect a certain level of investment and while being outside the top 10 the past few years (which I have offered context for continually around this discussion, which I'd argue at the very least is plausible) is not a good look, under this ownership they have rarely been outside the top 3 in 25 years. If they continue to be outside the top 10, or even top 5, questions should rightly be asked. I prefer to see the context and overall picture of 25 years and believe they will continue spending, than just assume they are now cheap and don't want to invest.

I'm hesitant to make this post as I hardly feel sorry for billionaires, and as a concept, don't think should even be allowed to exist, but nonetheless, I do feel fans need to wake up a bit and get real. Frist off all these are business men, The whole sport is a business. How often do you hear it from players, agents, managers, et al - "it's a business, man". Secondly you live in a capitalistic society. So why do sports fans complain when their owners make money? Isn't that the name of the game for everyone? And they're making money while delivering four WS in twenty five years - THE MOST WS in the sport in that time period. Could they spend more on times? Sure. Are they terrible owners or cheap? Not even close. Now let's look at their revenues. Yes they were at $574m in 2024. From that they made an operating profit $120m. This was earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, so actual profit is quite a bit lower than this. Still, not too bad by anyone's measure. But in 2023 their revenue was 'only' $500m. In 2022 it was $513m, in 2022 it was $479m and of course during Covid, it was $147m (though expenditure was down too). What exactly do fans want them to do? Spend every penny they bring in? And then be at risk every season of down years and lower revenues? To swing wildly between a little green and a lot of red? What if they did that? Spent it all and loaded up on contracts that ended up bad, or terrible? An then we have a payroll wiping out every penny we make, yet revenue is trending down now because nobody wants to turn up and watch a s*** baseball team of overpaid rubbish. What then? Fans don't seem to realise that the Red Sox are only as rich as they are right now because of the owners business acumen. Because of their ability to make deals. Because NESN (who they own!) is sending them $100m a year in revenue alone. Why aren't these people allowed to have an organisation that is making money (and hardly ruinous amounts at that) and on a sound footing? What would be better? Fan ownership? Don't make me laugh, the payroll would be through the floor after ticket and merch prices crashed. Other ownership? Like who? Who can afford them? A lunatic like Musk? f*** that. Foreign ownership? A cursory look at European soccer and the waste land of broken clubs and whitewashing some of those investments have made should give you more than pause. Hedge funds? Possibly the worst option of the three. These guys routinely put out a team that is in the higher echelons of pay roll spending. The last 4 or 5 years it hasn't been right at the top (though hardly miles off), but then it would seem obvious why. Several costly and idiotic mistakes were made that put the roster and organisation in a bad spot and take time to recover from. Spending money then would have likely been sending good money after bad, and I've already shown you that revenues were down across those years (in part because of the product on the field) and they had just come off a killer down year through Covid. Plus they're just too smart as businessmen to make that sort of mistake. There's also the fact that the Red Sox are just not the biggest players in the pool anymore. To compare the New York Yankees revenue was somewhere between $729 and $800m in 2024 (estimates differ). The Dodgers revenue was $1 BILLION. These are insignificant amounts to Cohen's wealth, and even the Rogers family in Toronto. People routinely say - "But, but Henry is a billionaire!" He's a paper billionaire. If he sold his stake in FSG, or his sports teams, he'd be a billionaire. But he's not the sort of rich that can dip into his own picket and take out hundreds of millions to throw around whenever he sees fit. Finally, they clearly would like (and need) to be a sustainably run organisation, for obvious reasons outlined above. To do that, they can't afford to continually smash through pay roll barriers and lose international money and drop back picks in the draft (or lose draft picks all together). We've seen how much stronger we are as a team when we have a great farm and those players start graduating or are moved for players like Crochet. Even losing a 2nd and 5th rounder for a player with a pick attached stings like hell when we're trying to be efficient and up against teams that can drop $760m and $800m (more than the majority of the sports' teams total revenue figures) on an individual players. In short, fans have the right to ask for more of course, and on times when spending is down, demand it. But they also need to grow up and realise where the Red Sox are. Being in the top 5 spenders is realistic. Asking for anymore is not. Just thumping your fist on a table and demanding we be the highest spenders or the best because I want it, is idiotic, and utterly failing to understand that even despite these owners incredible business acumen - the landscape has changed and we aren't one of the 2/3 biggest bullies in the pool any longer.

Uh... yeah... you're confusing me with Hugh I assume. Which would explain why your reply to me made zero sense in the first place.

Except it's not. At all. And the bench players can still get at bats. You're talking nonsense in reply to my point. I am not commenting on the wider conservation at large.

I can see what you get in long tiresome exchanges with people. What's this we talk? I am just talking about your valuations in your trades. It's difficult to take this question seriously when you add in either Hicks or Massa to virtually every trade suggestion because it might roughly balance out on BTV. BTV is a nice tool for trying to work out value, but is very limited and is virtually useless when it comes to nuance or taking into account teams needs in any trade that's lining up. An example of this was Chapman and his pitiful BTV value at the deadline. Despite the fact we could have gotten a huge haul for the best closer in the game last year off a contending team.

It's just trading one bad contract for another however. And are we happy with an infield of Contreras Mayer Story Arenado Just so we can keep the 4 outfielders? Not for me.

Why can't it be, however? If the roster works out that we have the big 4 in the outfield rotating between the positions and DH I would say that would help us keep all 4 healthy.

For then, yes. Now we must get maximum value for now, or keep him.

Slightly worried about his decreasing bat speed, but he's my overall number 1 choice for the 2nd base spot.

Possibly, but that doesn't help us now in our need for extra payroll flexibility. And he'll only be DH, not playing the field. I'm not sure how much value a light hitting DH can build in 3 months, especially with his contract and history. Campbell should start in AAA. He's barely in my thoughts at all outside of trading away. He still has a lot to prove that he's deserving of a 26 man spot.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said we are overvaluing Duran. I think we should be holding out for maximum value and keep him if we don't get him.

Agreed with all of the above. His main value seems to be he is multi positional and that he is by all accounts a great clubhouse guy. He would be a great piece, but not for a club in our position. A finishing piece, not the extra bat our lineup badly needs.

An assumption, but I would guess the Phillies value Painter quite a bit more than Duran and Crawford/Harrison/Sandoval.

I don't know specific players, only that journos keep saying it would have to be a haul. Not to mention half the sport has been linked to him so the Cards will have their pick of the bunch and any offer will need to be at least substantial, and likely an overpay. And it will need to be prospects as the Cards are in rebuild mode. As much as I like the guy, we shouldn't be overpaying or depleting the farm further for Donovan.