drewski6

Sure. But my point (and this is not about the specific players being mentioned): If you are worried about 2026-2036 equal weight, you will likely not be as aggressive building the best team possible for 2026-2028 (shorter window) as teams that prioritize that shorter window over the larger 10 year window. Okay. Well, we'll get them in 2030, right! Well now its 2030 and you are trying to build a team that can compete from 2030-2040 (still looking at a ten year window) but now you are competing with an entirely different team (that first team won a championship in 2028 but now has bad contracts and is screwed for a few years, okay). But now theres a different team that is prioritizing 2030-2033 (short term) and overpaying (giving away too many years to FA's) window. Lets say they get a ship in 2032. Thats okay, we'll get em in 2035, right? Now its 2035, and we wanna make sure we are good for the next 10 years! So we are equal weighting them and trying to build a team that will be competitive from 2035-2045. That team that won this ship in 2032 is trapped under the bad contracts (hahaha, look at those fools) but theres a brand new team focusing on the short term. And they start gobbling chanmpionships from 2035-2038. Well, those fools might be celebrating today, but just you wait until 2040! Now its 2040, and we want to make sure we are good for the next 10 years! But while we are looking to be as good as possible over a long term, we arent being as aggressive in the 2040-2043 window as some teams that are prioritizing that window. And guess who's back now that its 2040, its that team that won a championship in 2028 bolded above. And you are thinking you are going to hurt yourselves 5 years out just like you did last time! Sure, but they are embracing the cyclical nature of this and now they are set up for a second compete window while we've been kicking the can down the road for decades.

I would only preach caution with this line of thinking. And its my usual catch phrase: if you are always dreaming about tomorrow , tomorrow never comes. YOu wanna choose mayer to build around , fine. But 5 years from now, I dont want to be hearing would you raher have mayer at $x or the NEXT 22 year old. Youll always get more value from a WAR divided by salary for the next one on their way up. So there comes a time where a team needs to decide if they are going to consider themselves in a "window" and not exclusively chase expected future value or if they are going to perpetually punt and kick the can down the road (like the As and Pirates do). This is not a case for Polanco over Mayer, just an acknowledgement that if you are basing your decision on expected future value of 6 years vs 2, then you are not prioritizing the short term. And thats a trap. There is a time to prioritize on the short term and I honestly believe for a big market team its at least 50% of the time (small market you have to take longer to rebuild). Not saying we should go for Polanco, but lets say it was an elite player , who you can get. Youll always be able to find someone more valuable and therefore youll always be able to justify not getting an elite player and thats not where i want to be. A team that breaks every potential signing down to value vs other options. Thats great when you are at certain points in your cycle, but to get over the hump, there comes a time when we should stop value chasing. We may be in that mode and just not like Polanco (which is fine) or we may fail to understand this (like that article I posted a few days ago points out). Teams that ALWAYS look 5 years out and chase maximum efficiency are the pirates and a's. Its fine to look 5 years out, but if its 5 years later and youre still looking 5 years out, you arent ever really being aggressive. And a lot of that is punting on accountability. Look at Bloom years. Look whats coming down the pipeline! Dont worry about these last place finishes. All Im saying is this mentality conveniently takes the pressure off performance in a perform or die sport.

Hes also a lot more athletic (he just doesnt look it)

But I 100% agree netiher Polanco nor Kim are worth crying about, its too early in the offseason for that. Maybe if spring training was starting next week, rosters were mostly set (so teams arent looking to trade a whole lot) and this was our last chance to add WAR > 2 players externally. Then maybe a little panic would be warranted. But certainly not right now over Polanco or Kim

They feel and seem high; however, inflation only goes one way, and one thing I think we've seen regarding changes in contracting, is that what separates the contracts from the very good (or better) vs the contracts for "serviceable"/"solid" has been more about years and overall contract than AAV. So by that I mean, teams are willing to pay a higher AAV to keep contracts short-term, and thats why the AAV of these contracts seem high. In baseball, its rare that contracts "snap back" but not uneard of. There are years when free-agency gets especially wacky, but I dont think this is one of those years. Just like theres trends to what we are all looking for in ballplayers (obp vs power vs defense) some "eras" seem to prioritize one over the other, I think the current contracting "era" is that average players get 20-25m for 1-3 years and significantly better than average players get 24-30m for significantly more years (of course age when inking the contract matters a lot as well). Think of it like this: people use to haggle on price when buying a car. But these days, the price is kind of the price (excluding third party sales) and maybe you can get them down a little, but where you negotiate these days is "I want free tune-ups for 3 years" or "I want a free set of extra floormats" Relative to baseball contracts, I think the AAV are becoming less variable , and they seem to be high teens -low twenties for "useful" playres and mid-twenties to low thirties for better than useful players. But where the negotation come in are the structure (opt-outs, protections, incentive vs guaranteed, years)

TY and apologies. Defending exploitation didnt feel to me like something you would excuse. Thats not your brand.

Out of everyone who currently reports to me, the guy who has been with me the longest - is the second from the bottom in pay. Part of it is bad luck regarding when he came in. He is a good friend of mine , and always has my back. Weve worked together previously. He is incredibly loyal, focused, and my right-hand. He is my ace and Im not sure I even want this VP job without him helping me manage it. He will never quit, he will never ask for more money - but he is underpaid, and Im (today) making a stink with corporate and HR about it. SHould I not? Whats my incentive if he continues to do great work wihtout the raise and will never leave. Who even are you, Notin? I didnt think you were this guy

Very simple question - do you not see this as exploitation of a fan base's loyalty and passion? Remember when Kraft fired Mayo after 1 yr, he said "I see myself as the custodian of a public asset", I promise you , if/when it suits them, you'll hear similar from Red Sox.

No, replacing Devers and Bregman with Okamoto and Kim does not make one of the best offseason in bb history lol, and again, you continue to overlook that there are multiple ways to get to the same payroll number. We are sick of the third tier shopping, we are sick of the overpaid AAV 1 year deals, we are sick of always finding an excuse to not get more elite players. We have one elite player Crochet, who we locked up at a discount. This team has gone up 2b in value in the last 5-7 years, and its frankly unacceptable.

Wake me up when we sign the #2 FA.

At this point, Im more comfortable saying top 4. But we'll see.

This is a trap and we arent going to fall for it. We do not care about the series of one -and - dones. The Red Sox have 0 contracts in the top 35 in baseball. The Red sox since 2018 have doubled their vlaue (adding 2b) but our payroll is lower when accounting for inflation Going back further to JH's initial purchase he has 20x'd his net worth and has been able to build an empire with wealth beyond his wildest dreams We want top players, not front loaded tax, not using the whole budget to extend, not a series of one-and-dones, we want to be aggressive. When was the last time the red sox signed a top free agent on a mulit-year deal? Even Story, we pounced because other teams werent going big dollars because of the injury risk, but we smelt discount. Who are the elite players on this team in their prime? I mean core.

In fairness, they arent particularly serious players in the trade market for hitters either, haha.

We love you Moon

Whats ugly is this lack of respect for a better red sox fan than you are. First of all, if you are going to imply Moon is entitled, or his line of thinking is entitled, say it plainly, dont beat around the bush with passive/aggressive twerpy comments. Secondly, are you aware that since 2018, the Red sox have 2x'd in value? This is only since 2018, since theyve taken the foot off the gas. If we go back to JH's purchase he is up 20-40x on his investment, and hes been able to sell off small chunks here and there to build an empire. He co-owns something with Lebron, he has a soccer club, he has one of the most prestigious NHL franchises. While the RS have 2x'd in value (2B - > 4b) since 2018, our payroll is consistent (down if you account for inflation). They have clearly taken their foot off the gas, and here you are - talking down to long time fans who live/breathe Red Sox. Talk about carrying water for ownership. And to make matters worse, you are willing to lie and spin in order to continue this weird desire you have to come here and defend ownership ignoring that they have built a giant empire (largely with our help). Like how you sometimes use the luxury tax hit to defend their payroll and sometimes you use the cash outlay (whichever is convenient). Roman Anthony is going to cost them 7mil this year, not the 16 you love to credit. Yes I know thats the tax hit, but thats just the red sox purchasing discounted years in the future and smoothing out the tax hit. There are ways to stretch the tax, minimize the hit for certain players, and be able to fit more under the second threshold, something they are unwilling to do. Instead, its the opposite , a series of short term deals for third and fourth tier players, with high AAV because of the lack of years, which chew the cap right up. Then you are like they spend to the threshholds, but we see how they are doing it, and yes how matters. You continue to overlook the cyclical nature of roster building and the necessity to stack talent. They could have left the youngsters cheap, creating room underneath the tax and went shopping while still managing to the tax threshold but instead, they just reworked deals for players they already controlled, so the tax hit would appear higher for this year. This is not how greedy teams operate. They fit all the talent onto their team they can. And those teams that operate like that, the ones trying to get as much talent as possible, are going to continue to get the better of us more times than not. You clearly did not read the article I posted about how just maximizing value does not win championships, and there comes a time when a team has to change gears and shift focus from long-term value to a willingness to overpay to supplement. This is how championship rosters are most often built. A mix of guys in their primes, guys a little past their primes, and youngsters. A mix of guys making big money, and guys making small money. What I dont understand is how some of you do not see the relationship between what we've been doing and the results we've been getting. One playoff win (game, not a series). Multiple third and fifth place divisional finishes. EVer since they took the foot off the gas. Ever since they decided they have done enough for us and would be operating going forward on a disadvantaged basis. Yes, when you overpay on a 1 year deal from an AAV point-of-view because you are unwilling to commit years, you can turn around and say :"look we spent" look we're at the tax. But its not going to fool us. We see the consistent overpay AAV short term deals for one and doens because they refuse to be players for the elite talent. They refuse to be players for the top 30 contracts in baseball (total dollars standpoint). Another words, we see through the charade. The deception. The false hope. The management speak. All reflected in the article I posted. The Red Sox are not trying to build the best baseball team they can. Its not like they are trying to do everything thats reasonable, but unwilling to go unreasonable. 22nd in reinvested revenue. Alonso did NOT get an unreasonable contract. And I am honestly not sure if you are just gullible or thinking you can come here, regurgitate the company line (which we've all heard before), and make implications that we're unreasonable/greedy/entitled - but there is one thing that you need to understand. They (billionaires) are not going to find you, pluck you out of the group, and be like "this guy gets it" , they wont ever know your existence, and here you are lying/deceiving your fellow red sox fans on their behalf. Thinking you're in a club that you arent in, and its sad. I am honestly not sure if you are buying their cool aid, their useful dope, or if you think you can spin ownership's obvious complacency into something else because you think its fun. The part that concerns me the most is that you are sitting there Im sure, thinking you are making great points and winning debates, and let me assure - you are not. You are the weirdo in the offense cheering when they corporate announces no bonuses hoping that the CEO will give you a nice little pat on the head for carrying his water (he wont).

Who is bookkeeping? Those of us who graduated with 4 yr accounting degrees in the greater boston area (umass amherst, umass boston, bc, pc, bu, bentley, suffolk, bryant, harvard, babson, northeastern) in the early 2000-2010....None of us were bookkeeping. We were 85% financial statement auditors and 15% tax. Bookkeepers are usually mid-age moms returning to work part time. In 2 years, I think I booked 20 total adjusting entries, 15 of which were quite superficial. Probably the hardest thing we did (at least first 3 years) was recalculate accruals and reasonableness testing. I have 0 doubt (and know for sure) that you use a lot more of your brain as you go up the ladder, but until you get to director level, accounting work is tedious and the exact opposite of the classroom (where they taught us that being inquisitive, skeptical, and analytical would help us). In practice, they wanted us to sign off on as much as possible as quickly as possible, and applying any kind of intelligence to our profession was frowned upon. Its no surprise that the enron era happened, as the accounting firms were negligent. I was a financial statement auditor, graduated top of my class at bentley, went on to bentley grad while i worked full time. I found the bentley grad level courses to be easier than their undergrad versions and what shocked me the most was how 1:for:1 the grad program classes were compared to undergrad equivalents. 100% cash grab for sure. Regarding 2 vs 4 yr degrees, the difference is lit, history, pre-law, govt, econ, writing, "study habits", psych, philosophy, soch, stats, differential equations, phsycis, bs electives are the difference. We didnt really get into accounting at bentley until yr 3, the first 2 years were making us well rounded (but dont think its useless). I know its popular to be pro trade anti college these days, but I can instantly tell college educated from not and have always had issues when promoting non college folks. Theres just something missing in a corporate setting. Accounting (not bookkeeping) was too easy for me , so i bored and left and 3 yrs later was running a pharmaceutical data analytics consulting shop. I dont regret my degree or my bentley investment. Accounting degrees are versatile, which saved me, so I went into pharmacy data analytics, taught myself SQL, and shot to the top.

I spent 5 years and $200k becoming an accountant and was over it in 10 months.

I remember being in a room with about 300 accountants , it was a regional meeting, Boston/Burlington/Quincy offices for a top 6 accounting firm where i worked at the time (mcgladrey) And they asked who was interested in getting cross trained in sales and marketing. I was the only one who raised my hand. I left the firm a year later, left accountancy and went into pharmaceutical contractual negotiation, but I still use elements of my accounting degree. But Im glad I made the move. Accounting wasnt for me, Im too analytical. At least for entry level accounting.

If hes still going oppo, we dont have to worry about him focing his way into the conversation, haha. You into willson contreras? Hes the hot rumor , it looks like.

he Red Sox are only collecting value players, and if nothing of value is available, they move on and don’t get anything good. Now, some might say this is a brilliant strategy because if you do it for long enough, you’ll eventually compile the most value-filled roster top to bottom anywhere in the sport. But here’s the problem, I don’t think that approach wins championships. I’d love for the Red Sox to prove me wrong, but running an MLB team isn’t just akin to managing a portfolio. It also has aspects of the following imperfect real world scenario sprinkled in: Suppose you’re taking a cross-country road trip and you’re goal is to get there in the most economic way possible. So you start your journey on the east coast and you decide you’re going to be really good about only filling up at the cheapest gas stations possible. It works great for a while, but then you start to encounter more and more remote stretches of highway with larger gaps between towns and more treacherous terrain. You skip by places to fill up because the gas there wasn’t a good value, and then eventually you get to the point where you have less than a quarter tank left and there’s 146 miles to the next station on the other side of the mountain pass. You’re options are either to pay for what you need, even if it’s not good value, or chance the success of the entire trip because you were too cheap to pay for it. That’s where we’re with the Red Sox. It doesn’t matter how well Roman Anthony can drive the bus if you run out of gas in a blizzard in the middle of Mooseball, Montana. In baseball, sometimes you have to deviate from the initial plan and go after guys who are good and not cheap to address a need, and if you don’t like that, you’re in the wrong industry! The key is finding the right balance between maximizing the value on the roster and when to cross the line. Or as Andrew Friedman so succinctly put it a decade ago: “If you’re always rational about every free agent, you will finish third on every free agent.” Oh, and if you’re not willing to do what it takes to finish first on any of the big free agents, stop feeding good people in the industry steaming piles of bull. Either that or you go on Twitter and face the toxic (but entirely justified) masses yourself. I’d be willing to pay Fenway Park ticket prices to witness those fireworks!

https://www.overthemonster.com/red-sox-comentary/94192/will-flemming-isnt-lying-to-you-but-it-looks-like-the-red-sox-are Great article.

It's been like this on the internet for a 100 years. And not just the RS. For fans that like a prospect/youngster, for any team, every set-back is attributable to moving him around the diamond too much (or calling him up too soon, or not soon enough)

If you're too afraid to miss, you wont swing enough.

scared-money / risk averse/ accountant mindset.

If I had read that we traded for Seager yesterday I would have been in celebration mode. I would have popped a bottle. If I read today, that we resigned Bregman, guess what? We're running it back and popping a second bottle. And do you know what else I think. You, Joe, would be like wow. A little shocked at first. Youd be cautious at first. Youd explain how you didnt think it would ever happen. Youd be a little nervous of the tying up the finances/drop-offs/not being able to address additional needs that may arise for a while. These would be avlid concerns. And then you'd come around and join the celebration yourself. And we'd let you on the party bus.