Hitch

Personally, I'd prefer Bo for 7 than I would Bregman for 5. But any higher on either would make me queasy.

I think they would have been fairly happy if he'd accepted that 3 year deal. It's not too risky and worth seeing if he wanted to take it. But they clearly did not feel they should go further. Which again, fine by me.

We were discussing Bregman. Nothing to do with Lester. With Lester they just flat out screwed it up.

While they should spend a bit more than they are doing (which I'm very confident they will), part of the reason the ticket prices are so high is because they have the 26th biggest park in the MLB with no scope to expand. I'm sure the majority of fans would be absolutely fine with them lowering ticket prices and spending less though. 😐 I notice nobody ever answers the why they should be in the top 5 spenders question. Easier to ignore it I suppose.

What's your problem with this? Seems obvious to me, they checked in with him like most teams did and then made him an offer they were comfortable going to. Which is to say they weren't overly sold on him. Fine by me.

I'd be tempted as long as that wasn't it. But then I don't have much faith in Campbell.

Never make your final offer first, as they say. Also, if we've made an offer, the player and agent will then shop that offer to everyone else to see if they will beat it. Sometimes our fans act like it's just our decision who comes here. Short of blowing people out of the water (something we absolutely shouldn't be doing), there's a process involved.

That's a s***** thing to say. Joe converses with everyone with respect and backs up his points of view. Nobody is forcing you to engage with him.

This proves the point I was making yesterday quite nicely.

You don't know what you're talking about. I have attacked ownership plenty, including constantly suggesting they're trying to be too smart for their own good. But when I see stuff that makes no sense, or is just flat out made up, on either side of the argument, I'll challenge them. There's an awful lot of hysteria around right now. You were attacking them yesterday for only doing a 1 yar arb. A ridiculous line of attack in anyone's language, but absolutely in line with someone looking for things to be angry about with ownership. Again, we are 4th in revenue, and there are 4 teams (outside of the 3 above us in revenue) that dwarf our ownership in wealth, so why exactly should we be higher than 8th?

Great book and film. 👍

4 of them are considerably richer than us.

I think they should give it to you, too. It would make you less grouchy! 😆

I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence. The only thing we know for sure - Duran has been linked away with trades for months now, a year or more really. And he's still here. Somehow values are not matching up.

Um, no, The person who came up with the line is the writer, obviously. In this case, Aaron Sorkin. The meeting between Beane and Henry is fictional. Sorkin talks about piecing together what he thinks they may have talked about had they met that day. Just like The Social Network (another Sorkin movie) is a movie jampacked full of imagined conversations, not a documentary of what happened.

It's what should happen, but won't because, well - business. Everyone wants to make money not give it away.

Nobody is allowed to say anything I believe I'm right in saying - can't influence the market or some nonsense. While they all leak like a sieve.

100% agree. I don't see it happening, but boy does the sport need it.

What on earth?

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.