The Average Fan’s Perspective

[CR67dream]

I was aiming to speak for the people who, like myself, aren’t educated in advanced metrics and who hold the ideas that I’ve expressed. From reading this board, I believe that my opinions are in the minority.

What do advanced metrics have to do with this subject at all? That would be more relevant to baseball discussions than ownership discussions, I think. And it's also important to note that being an expert in those metrics is not a requirement here. A basic understanding of them helps for sure, but there a lot of non-statheads here, myself included, that do just fine.

What's going to happen, instead, is we'll get a bunch of straw men. The SoSH of old is certainly dead and there is not a fucking thing that I can do about it. Sad.

Tragic, really.

 

[astrozombie]

That's certainly the way it looks right now. But some part of John Henry has to know that infuriating and/or driving off a big chunk of the fanbase over an extended period is eventually going to reach a tipping point where it hurts more than it helps.

FSG, like virtually every business, has some version of a cost/benefit analysis where they determined that the benefits of saving money or having money for other ventures, or preventing future CBT tax payments or however you want to justify "save money" outweighs the cost of potentially losing some portion of the fanbase for a few years. The fanbase is huge. They spend money. Losing a couple hardcore fans (unlikely as that is) is not moving the needle and the casual fans are largely unaffected because there will almost always be enough interested people being able to see a baseball game in the summer - especially when secondary market prices are reasonable. And those casual fans will likely come back once the team is good again. It's the same reason why the Knicks, who have mostly sucked the last several decades *still* draw a crowd - their fanbase is just so large it can overcome some fans dissatisfaction with the team. Hell, even the As are only leaving Oakland because their owner wants more money from some other place and that owner has been worse to his fans than FSG.
FSG has correctly calculated that whatever PR hit and loss of revenue - and possibly franchise value - they have to endure for a few years to get into PGA or the NBA is worth it.

 

[sezwho]

I was aiming to speak for the people who, like myself, aren’t educated in advanced metrics and who hold the ideas that I’ve expressed. From reading this board, I believe that my opinions are in the minority.

What do advanced metrics have to do with this subject at all? That would be more relevant to baseball discussions than ownership discussions, I think. And it's also important to note that being an expert in those metrics is not a requirement here. A basic understanding of them helps for sure, but there a lot of non-statheads here, myself included, that do just fine.



Tragic, really.

It may not be what is was in the old glory days, I was just lurking for decade or so, but it means a lot to some people still.

 

[HfxBob]

FSG, like virtually every business, has some version of a cost/benefit analysis where they determined that the benefits of saving money or having money for other ventures, or preventing future CBT tax payments or however you want to justify "save money" outweighs the cost of potentially losing some portion of the fanbase for a few years. The fanbase is huge. They spend money. Losing a couple hardcore fans (unlikely as that is) is not moving the needle and the casual fans are largely unaffected because there will almost always be enough interested people being able to see a baseball game in the summer - especially when secondary market prices are reasonable. And those casual fans will likely come back once the team is good again. It's the same reason why the Knicks, who have mostly sucked the last several decades *still* draw a crowd - their fanbase is just so large it can overcome some fans dissatisfaction with the team. Hell, even the As are only leaving Oakland because their owner wants more money from some other place and that owner has been worse to his fans than FSG.
FSG has correctly calculated that whatever PR hit and loss of revenue - and possibly franchise value - they have to endure for a few years to get into PGA or the NBA is worth it.

McAdam says that while Fenway attendance hasn't dropped much, NESN ratings have been plummeting.

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2024/01/some-things-i-think-i-think-on-dwindling-tv-ratings-for-red-sox-and-more.html

The exact impact that has on the bottom line can only be guessed at.

 

[astrozombie]

McAdam says that while Fenway attendance hasn't dropped much, NESN ratings have been plummeting.

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2024/01/some-things-i-think-i-think-on-dwindling-tv-ratings-for-red-sox-and-more.html

The exact impact that has on the bottom line can only be guessed at.

First off, I am not sure how ratings are even measured these days, given that viewing habits have changed drastically. TV viewership overall is down (networks would kick a puppy to get the 9 million viewers who watched the X-Files on the Friday night graveyard slot in the 90s), the rise of streamers... even live sports all around seems to be flat as evidenced by lower ratings for the SB and WS in recent years. Second, NESN isn't carried on a number of platforms for those who cut cords (Hulu, YoutubeTV, etc.) so I would not be surprised if NESN is losing out just by being behind the times. Though admittedly, a bad team won't get people to shell out for the NESN sub. Not saying that to argue with you, just pointing out that there are a number of macro factors that could explain it as well.

 

[cantor44]

If the majority of Bello, Casas, Mayer, Teel, Anthony, Rafaela and Abreu mature into a productive core and ownership still doesn’t spend to put that team over the top, then I’ll go grab my pitchfork. Until then, I’m not so fired up about payroll based on their overall track record. And besides, it’s not as if they weren’t over the CBT threshold in ‘22.

Do I want them to sign JM and a bat to try opening a window a year early? Yes.
Do I see the logic in holding off on huge financial commitments right now? Also yes.

I guess the subsequent questions are:
- When will we know if Bello, Casas, Mayer, Teel, Anthony, Rafaela, and Abreu have matured into a productive core. 2026? 2027? So, we're talking no big FA investments until 2027 or 2028?
What if they don't mature into a productive core? Wait until the next prospect core comes up in, what, 2029? And then begin investing in 2030?
- When, during the Henry era, have the Red Sox ever pursued this strategy of fulling waiting for a young core to mature before investing in FAs before? Is there any precedent? Did any of the Championship teams follow this approach?
- If this sort of hard-core-prospects-maturing-first strategy is new, what changed within the organization to pivot to this strategy?

 

[simplicio]

Then don't!

I guess the subsequent questions are:
- When will we know if Bello, Casas, Mayer, Teel, Anthony, Rafaela, and Abreu have matured into a productive core. 2026? 2027? So, we're talking no big FA investments until 2027 or 2028?
What if they don't mature into a productive core? Wait until the next prospect core comes up in, what, 2029? And then begin investing in 2030?
- When, during the Henry era, have the Red Sox ever pursued this strategy of fulling waiting for a young core to mature before investing in FAs before? Is there any precedent? Did any of the Championship teams follow this approach?
- If this sort of hard-core-prospects-maturing-first strategy is new, what changed within the organization to pivot to this strategy?

Is there another time in this ownership's tenure where we've had the consensus worst farm system in baseball like we did in 2019? It takes time to come back from that.

 

[jose melendez]

This isn't directed to you, but then you need to show your math or instead bring the conversation to somewhere more appropriate, like reddit of weei.com/forum.

I'd love for someone to show the math on how running a milquetoast franchise could be more profitable in the long run. Nobody is.

What's going to happen, instead, is we'll get a bunch of straw men. The SoSH of old is certainly dead and there is not a fucking thing that I can do about it. Sad.

I'm certainly not capable of it, but we have plenty of evidence from, well, much of MLB that you can make a good profit fielding a shit team. The Sox keep raising ticket prices, so presumably the elasticity of demand isn't that high or there'd be a huge number of empty seats. Postseason gates, which are never guaranteed probably.don't make up the additional payroll. Gate receipts in an averages year seem to be about $180 million. So about $2 million per game. It would obviously be higher for the playoffs, but they're not assured--the risk of $0 is substantial. And there's some sort of multiplier for concessions. The national TV money is largely fixed regardless of performance right? (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

What I don't have much of a sense of is how NESN plays in. It was a big part of the purchase of the team, but I assume its value has to be dropping. Running a successful team, even if the payroll is pretty high has to be more profitable, but there's probably a lot more variance in having a high payroll team than a low payroll one. Being the Mets is a disaster--huge salary payout, no added revenue from being good, and that's a real risk. If your payroll is low and you're good, it's all gravy. If your payroll is low and you suck, revenue still probably exceeds expenses--being cheap doesn't seem to maximize profits, but I'd bet it minimizes the risk of losses.


Regardless of whether it's happening because they're being cheap or because they're being stupid, management deserves to get the crap kicked out of them right now.

 

[MartyBC]

It is not about spending money, it is about an actual strategy.

They went from trying to be innovative, to getting a win now guy, to grabbing for lack of a better term a "hack". The moment this team moved on from Lucchino (who had his warts) to Sam Kennedy, the emphasis went from winning to earn profit to ROI driven approach where winning was secondary. Bloom was brought in because Kennedy thought the Red Sox could sustain a Tampa Bay model and still make money. Years of grabbing the right guys extending them and then filling in the holes was replaced with trying to burn everything to the ground and reactively spending money to try to fix the issues. And the money they have spent has been poor to awful because it is reactive.

The team has not been in this kind of position in 50 years. And even then they at least had Yaz. Devers is no Yaz.

Ownership has diluted (they literally brought in a man that publicly hates Boston) and went off in different directions. That makes sense. Sports ownership is a great asset to own. People give them free stadiums and you can lie and plead poverty at any time.

As a fan, I don't give a shit if LeBron James and Co. make a lot of money if the Red Sox are losing. I have no interest in investing in suboptimal product at a premium price. Normally you just walk away or just enjoy the ensuing car wreck of watching an inept business leader huffing their own supply on the way to the plane crash. Unfortunately, I have a strong identity based relationship with the Boston Red Sox. It is not just a product to me despite me realizing it just unit of entertainment. That is what FSG 2.0 was banking on. I have such a strong association of the brand that I will keep shoveling dog poop in my mouth and happily pay out whatever they do. Hey and there are people here who are still brought in, and good for them if it brings them joy. I wish I didn't fault them for it but the vitriol caused by Kennedy & Co's blatant cash grab at something I held dear is tough to keep down.

And honestly what can I do besides bitch on a message board and tune the Red Sox out.

.
In other words “Green Fields of the Mind?”

 

[chrisfont9]

What exactly are people a fan of? Winning trophies? It's been great but in a 30-team league you can only expect so many of those. Chasing the playoffs? That would be nice, I'll admit. Watching great baseball? In that respect the league has never been healthier, unless you prefer a different style, but the reason people play the way they do now is because they win more that way.

I'm a fan of watching baseball in general and with a direction toward competing for championships, although the latter to me includes the long, slow rebuilding process too. This is what I grew up on, the Sox of the 70s-90s, forever on a quest. Some of us are more patient in this regard than others, possibly because of this background. If the "common fan" just wants to know when the next parade is, though, they are deluding themselves and should probably still feel pretty damn lucky we have what we have. I suspect the "common fan" is more shorthand for older fans, who studied the game a lot, and who ought to be able to see how great the level of play is now, if we can just not be perpetually wrapped around the axle about titles.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

First off, I am not sure how ratings are even measured these days, given that viewing habits have changed drastically. TV viewership overall is down (networks would kick a puppy to get the 9 million viewers who watched the X-Files on the Friday night graveyard slot in the 90s), the rise of streamers... even live sports all around seems to be flat as evidenced by lower ratings for the SB and WS in recent years. Second, NESN isn't carried on a number of platforms for those who cut cords (Hulu, YoutubeTV, etc.) so I would not be surprised if NESN is losing out just by being behind the times. Though admittedly, a bad team won't get people to shell out for the NESN sub. Not saying that to argue with you, just pointing out that there are a number of macro factors that could explain it as well.

NESN provides a dual revenue stream for the Sox. They make money via subscriptions (X amount per month per subscribing HH), and advertising (which will depend on how many people are watching and how high demand is). It’s likely that subscriptions drive a lot more revenue than advertising. It looks like NESN has around 3-4 million subs. Guessing they get $6-$7 a sub per month? But the number of subs and advertising dollars are surely not growing.

This goes a bit deeper into it.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

 

[Semper Fenway]

I’m a fan of the standard that Theo used to employ - being a 95-win team every year. That won’t happen for the third straight year, and it’s hard to imagine that the Red Sox are even aiming for it this season.

What exactly are people a fan of? Winning trophies? It's been great but in a 30-team league you can only expect so many of those. Chasing the playoffs? That would be nice, I'll admit. Watching great baseball? In that respect the league has never been healthier, unless you prefer a different style, but the reason people play the way they do now is because they win more that way.

I'm a fan of watching baseball in general and with a direction toward competing for championships, although the latter to me includes the long, slow rebuilding process too. Some of us are more patient in this regard than others. If the "common fan" just wants to know when the next parade is, though, they are deluding themselves and should probably still feel pretty damn lucky we have what we have. I suspect the "common fan" is more shorthand for older fans, who studied the game a lot, and who ought to be able to see how great the level of play is now, if we can just not be perpetually wrapped around the axle about titles.

 

[chrisfont9]

I’m a fan of the standard that Theo used to employ - being a 95-win team every year. That won’t happen for the third straight year, and it’s hard to imagine that the Red Sox are even aiming for it this season.

Who is a 95-win team every year? Do you not think the game has changed since 2004? This is one of the big disconnects, the idea that they used to just be able to win 95 games -- by outspending or pilfering a ready supply of poor or dumb teams -- and that should continue perpetually because nothing has changed? Who are the dumb teams we can just grab a top player from now?

 

[tims4wins]

Who is a 95-win team every year? Do you not think the game has changed since 2004? This is one of the big disconnects, the idea that they used to just be able to win 95 games -- by outspending or pilfering a ready supply of poor or dumb teams -- and that should continue perpetually because nothing has changed? Who are the dumb teams we can just grab a top player from now?

I think you are misinterpreting. The GOAL was to be a 95 win team every year. It didn't mean it happened.

Maybe with the expanded playoffs that should be revised downward to the goal being a 92 or 90 win team every year.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think you are misinterpreting. The GOAL was to be a 95 win team every year. It didn't mean it happened.

Maybe with the expanded playoffs that should be revised downward to the goal being a 92 or 90 win team every year.

Yes, the goal was to be a 95 win team each year, which should put the team in the post-season when achieved. With the expanded playoffs, the requisite number of wins to assure a post-season berth probably is lower now.

I don't think that negates chrisfont9's main point though. The league has definitely changed since Theo was espousing that mantra. There are more teams willing to spend to keep/acquire premium talent. There are arguably even more teams with smart front offices that don't let undervalued assets go as easily as they used to. And perhaps most importantly, many of the rules have changed and closed off some of the advantages that Theo used to take advantage of with his advanced analytics and the team's financial might.

It's also worth pointing out that even Theo didn't really follow through on that goal, at least not in the way he suggested he intended to (the player development machine). Toward the end of his tenure, the farm pipeline was drying up (pitching in particular) and they encountered some bad luck on top of that (Westmoreland, for example). The payroll started to bloat as a result and it all came to a head when he left and Cherington had to pull off the Punto trade miracle to reset.

Winning is hard. Being a consistent winner is hard. Even teams trying their damnedest to pull it off aren't always going to succeed because it's hard.

 

[tims4wins]

Yes, the goal was to be a 95 win team each year, which should put the team in the post-season when achieved. With the expanded playoffs, the requisite number of wins to assure a post-season berth probably is lower now.

I don't think that negates chrisfont9's main point though. The league has definitely changed since Theo was espousing that mantra. There are more teams willing to spend to keep/acquire premium talent. There are arguably even more teams with smart front offices that don't let undervalued assets go as easily as they used to. And perhaps most importantly, many of the rules have changed and closed off some of the advantages that Theo used to take advantage of with his advanced analytics and the team's financial might.

It's also worth pointing out that even Theo didn't really follow through on that goal, at least not in the way he suggested he intended to (the player development machine). Toward the end of his tenure, the farm pipeline was drying up (pitching in particular) and they encountered some bad luck on top of that (Westmoreland, for example). The payroll started to bloat as a result and it all came to a head when he left and Cherington had to pull off the Punto trade miracle to reset.

Winning is hard. Being a consistent winner is hard. Even teams trying their damnedest to pull it off aren't always going to succeed because it's hard.

I agree with everything you wrote. But I don't think anyone can argue with a serious face that the 2020-2023 Red Sox were seriously trying to put a 90+ win team on the field. They did achieve it in 2021. But their plan has mostly been "if almost everything goes right, we can make the playoffs". Whereas I think what we are looking for is "unless a bunch of stuff goes wrong, we are likely to make the playoffs".

Nearly 40% of the league makes the playoffs every year. Given the financial resources, I expect the Red Sox to be in the playoffs closer to 4 out of 5 years than 2 out of 5 years.

Even with the 2016-2018 run, they've missed the playoffs 6 out of the last 10 years (edit: and 9 out of 14 if my math is right? Makes in 2013, 2016-2018, 2021; misses in 2010-2012; 2014-2015; 2019-2020; 2022-2023). I realize the format has changed but that is 35.7% in the last 14 years; under the current system 37.5% of teams make it. Yikes.

 

[chrisfont9]

I think you are misinterpreting. The GOAL was to be a 95 win team every year. It didn't mean it happened.

Maybe with the expanded playoffs that should be revised downward to the goal being a 92 or 90 win team every year.

Well the post said it was a standard, not a goal, but goal makes more sense in reality, and pushing the threshold down a few wins makes sense too, because ultimately we are just talking about making the playoffs -- which, just last year, consisted of two 84-win teams and an 89-win team among the six wild card entries.

 

[chrisfont9]

I agree with everything you wrote. But I don't think anyone can argue with a serious face that the 2020-2023 Red Sox were seriously trying to put a 90+ win team on the field. They did achieve it in 2021. But their plan has mostly been "if almost everything goes right, we can make the playoffs". Whereas I think what we are looking for is "unless a bunch of stuff goes wrong, we are likely to make the playoffs".

Nearly 40% of the league makes the playoffs every year. Given the financial resources, I expect the Red Sox to be in the playoffs closer to 4 out of 5 years than 2 out of 5 years.

Even with the 2016-2018 run, they've missed the playoffs 6 out of the last 10 years (edit: and 9 out of 14 if my math is right? Makes in 2013, 2016-2018, 2021; misses in 2010-2012; 2014-2015; 2019-2020; 2022-2023). I realize the format has changed but that is 35.7% in the last 14 years; under the current system 37.5% of teams make it. Yikes.

Yeah, sure, it's been rough. But let's also be realistic about the organization's talent arc. 2018 was the all-in season, and I can't thank them enough for that, but the consequences were a steeper-than-usual talent dropoff that has led to a pretty significant rebuild, in an environment where it's tougher than it used to be to do that, and where teams like the Orioles are a few years ahead of us at the same task. Assuming most of us are New Englanders, we should be pretty clear about how this works, since the Patriots are in an even more dramatic version of the same cycle. They drafted at the bottom for almost 20 years straight, and the bill finally came due.

It's possible for the Sox to have spent their way back into the playoffs anyway in this time -- and they did exactly that just two seasons ago --- but the landscape is littered with teams like the Mets and Padres who spent themselves into a hole with no reward. I can't really blame Henry for saying he's not up for that. I plan to eat right and exercise so I'll be all ready for the next championship window to open.

 

[8slim]

This isn't directed to you, but then you need to show your math or instead bring the conversation to somewhere more appropriate, like reddit of weei.com/forum.

I'd love for someone to show the math on how running a milquetoast franchise could be more profitable in the long run. Nobody is.

What's going to happen, instead, is we'll get a bunch of straw men. The SoSH of old is certainly dead and there is not a fucking thing that I can do about it. Sad.

Probably depends on what you mean by “long run” but the Cubs have been precisely an example of what you suggest. Aside from a few of Theo’s years there, they’ve been mediocre at best, but sell out Wrigley in the summer, sell a lot of merch, make money from their O&O TV network, and have been quite profitable.

I suspect there’s only a handful of franchises that can pull this business model off, because it requires a stadium “experience” and a large fan base. But the Cubs and Sox have a lot of similarities there.

All that aside, I seriously doubt the Sox long term plan is to purposefully be mediocre yet profitable. I just think their recent strategy has stunk, and I’m not optimistic about the near term.

 

[Margo McCready]

I guess the subsequent questions are:
- When will we know if Bello, Casas, Mayer, Teel, Anthony, Rafaela, and Abreu have matured into a productive core. 2026? 2027? So, we're talking no big FA investments until 2027 or 2028?
What if they don't mature into a productive core? Wait until the next prospect core comes up in, what, 2029? And then begin investing in 2030?
- When, during the Henry era, have the Red Sox ever pursued this strategy of fulling waiting for a young core to mature before investing in FAs before? Is there any precedent? Did any of the Championship teams follow this approach?
- If this sort of hard-core-prospects-maturing-first strategy is new, what changed within the organization to pivot to this strategy?

All fair questions. And for clarity, I would very much like for them to spend smartly and start opening a window now. I think that can be done without mortgaging the future, but maybe the FO doesn’t think so. I don’t know. They’re in charge, I’m not.

- I would hope we’d have a sense of whether most of those guys are panning out or not by 2026. Maybe that’s pushing it, I don’t know. Obviously they won’t all work out, but add Grissom and I think there’s enough bites at the apple to feel confident enough there will be something worth supplementing with veterans by 2025. And again, I think it would be great to start now if JM will take a reasonable deal.

- If this group of young players doesn’t work out, it will suck, but obviously you pivot. You’d have no choice. What that looks like, your guess is a good as mine. It would likely be free agents, trades, and whatever homegrown players that have developed by then.

- I suppose what I’m envisioning is something similar to the ‘16-‘18 run. By then it was clear they had something with Bogarts, JBJ, Vasquez, a 5’9” right fielder who-shall-not-be-named, and an emerging Benintendi and Devers, so they spent on Price, Porcello, JDM and traded for Sale among others to supplement them. Why can’t something similar to that play out again?

- I’m not seeing the hard-core-prospects-maturing-first strategy as anything new. I suppose I’m likening where we are right now to the 2015 season. Maybe I’m way off base here. We’ll see.

 

[Rasputin]

The SoSH of old is certainly dead and there is not a fucking thing that I can do about it. Sad.

The average fan is an idiot who thinks a single season is the all important everything, and that any attempt at rebuilding equates to not having a plan.

There's no point in spending a ton of money to be mediocre. There's no way to be mediocre forever than spending a ton of money on older players. We've made that mistake many many times before. We don't need to name the names. We all know them well. When you're rebuilding, you don't sign big long term contracts that stand a decent chance of being terrible by the time the team is supposed to be good.

I think the team is close enough to being good enough that this offseason was ripe for spending on top tier pitching. The team clearly disagreed. It appears they determined that spending a ton for Yamamoto made sense, but that spending for the other (older) pitchers didn't. Montgomery to the Sox is a move so obvious it's clear to me they set a dollar value for him, and are holding fast to that while he tests every other market imaginable. If and when his numbers come down, he'll be ours.

We have a large number of potentially impact players who are in that anxious zone of being within a couple years (either side) of their major league debut. We will know an awful lot more about Anthony, Teel, Mayer, Rafaela, Casas, Bello, Grissom, and probably some others. I'm confident enough that enough of them are going to pan out that I'd make moves this offseason. The team clearly disagrees and that's reasonable.

Also, next year looks like it's going to be a good one for free agent pitchers. Much more so than this year. Waiting obviously runs the risk of those guys signing extensions with their current team, but you have to weigh that against the risk that the contract is going to turn out to suck.

Anyway, average fan is an idiot. There's an obvious plan in place. The team is being more cautious than I would be and that's reasonable if annoying.

Also, dinner is ready so I gotta go.

 

[chrisfont9]

- If this group of young players doesn’t work out, it will suck, but obviously you pivot. You’d have no choice. What that looks like, your guess is a good as mine. It would likely be free agents, trades, and whatever homegrown players that have developed by then.

Sox are picking 12th this year, and in that scenario you describe we will keep picking in the upper levels of the draft. Combined with having money to use on the international market, it's more a question of when than if we ever see the talent arrive to support a playoff contender.

 

[Semper Fenway]

Who is a 95-win team every year? Do you not think the game has changed since 2004? This is one of the big disconnects, the idea that they used to just be able to win 95 games -- by outspending or pilfering a ready supply of poor or dumb teams -- and that should continue perpetually because nothing has changed? Who are the dumb teams we can just grab a top player from now?

Yes, the game has changed. But why lower one’s standards? Since when is a 78-win season acceptable?

 

[chrisfont9]

Yes, the game has changed. But why lower one’s standards? Since when is a 78-win season acceptable?

When did I say that? Also see 2015.

 

[Semper Fenway]

When did I say that? Also see 2015.

I’m not saying you did. I’m just making the point that we, as fans, should demand excellence.

 

[Tony Pena's Gas Cloud]

I’m not saying you did. I’m just making the point that we, as fans, should demand excellence.

What's your standard for "excellence"? Are you suggesting that only SOME teams' fans should demand "excellence", or ALL teams' fans? If so, which teams? Should some fans demand "pretty darn good" instead if they root for the other, less fortunate teams?

 

[Semper Fenway]

What's your standard for "excellence"? Are you suggesting that only SOME teams' fans should demand "excellence", or ALL teams' fans? If so, which teams? Should some fans demand "pretty darn good" instead if they root for the other, less fortunate teams?

All teams’ fans should demand excellence. Consecutive last place finishes is not excellence. Rumors of unloading the team’s closer - to save money - isn’t excellence. This isn’t even “pretty darn good.”

We became accustomed to a “win at all costs” mentality for the first half of John Henry’s ownership. It’s a huge let down to not compete. And the Red Sox are not built to compete in 2024.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

All teams’ fans should demand excellence. Consecutive last place finishes is not excellence. Rumors of unloading the team’s closer - to save money - isn’t excellence. This isn’t even “pretty darn good.”

We became accustomed to a “win at all costs” mentality for the first half of John Henry’s ownership. It’s a huge let down to not compete. And the Red Sox are not built to compete in 2024.

"Rumors" of moving Jansen seem to mostly be fan/media fantasies more than actual reports that they're shopping him around.

As for the "win at all costs" mentality, the Red Sox have never really had that. In fact, I'd argue that only the 2016-2019 Dombrowski era team was anything close to "win at all costs" and it's a reason they're where they are now. We look at the 2004 team and point to trading for Schilling and signing Foulke as pulling out all the stops, but conveniently overlook that the A-Rod deal (which really would have been pulling out all the stops) was shut down because they wanted to rework his deal to lower the cost. A "win at all costs" team would have just taken on that contract as is (like the Yankees did). Not to mention that the whole thing with Nomar soured in large part because they "lowballed" him in their extension offer then tried to trade him and damaged the relationship. Of course, it all worked out for the good so no sense in remembering the actions that if done today would be more fodder for the they-don't-care-enough brigade. We like to think they've changed but in reality, they really haven't. Arguably the league has changed around them and the advantages they held 15 years ago no longer exist.

 

[Semper Fenway]

I completely, yet respectfully, disagree. For the first half of Henry’s reign, the Red Sox were consistently a top 3 payroll team. That is no longer the case. Moreover, before the current era, when did the Red Sox simply stopped spending money on free agents - as they’ve done this offseason - in favor of a monolithic farm building approach? This pattern, most pronounced over the last couple of years, is not how the Red Sox of, say, 2002-2018 were run.

Was trading Nomar in 2004 a salary dump? No. I believe Theo when he says that it was done to improve the team’s defense. There was also much written at the time about Nomar being a clubhouse distraction.

The “they haven’t changed” argument just falls short for me when the Red Sox are no longer “in” on any big name free agents, their payroll is going down (per Sam Kennedy), and they are putting all of their eggs in the building-the-farm basket. None of those approaches were taken between 2002 and 2018.

"Rumors" of moving Jansen seem to mostly be fan/media fantasies more than actual reports that they're shopping him around.

As for the "win at all costs" mentality, the Red Sox have never really had that. In fact, I'd argue that only the 2016-2019 Dombrowski era team was anything close to "win at all costs" and it's a reason they're where they are now. We look at the 2004 team and point to trading for Schilling and signing Foulke as pulling out all the stops, but conveniently overlook that the A-Rod deal (which really would have been pulling out all the stops) was shut down because they wanted to rework his deal to lower the cost. A "win at all costs" team would have just taken on that contract as is (like the Yankees did). Not to mention that the whole thing with Nomar soured in large part because they "lowballed" him in their extension offer then tried to trade him and damaged the relationship. Of course, it all worked out for the good so no sense in remembering the actions that if done today would be more fodder for the they-don't-care-enough brigade. We like to think they've changed but in reality, they really haven't. Arguably the league has changed around them and the advantages they held 15 years ago no longer exist.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The “they haven’t changed” argument just falls short for me when the Red Sox are no longer “in” on any big name free agents, their payroll is going down (per Sam Kennedy), and they are putting all of their eggs in the building-the-farm basket. None of those approaches were taken between 2002 and 2018.

Did we sign a major FA, or hand out a major contract extension every single season from 02-18? Have we failed to do so from 19-24?

You might be right, or you might be wrong, or you might be partially correct and onto something. Any which way, listing those agents and extensions would be interesting and would give us a particular shape to consider.

 

[Semper Fenway]

While I don’t have time to compile the data, think about the following names: Curt Schilling, Keith Foulke, Daisuke, J.D. Martinez, Johnny Damon, Pablo Sandoval, Carl Crawford, and so many more.

Even without looking at any other offseasons, there were no major signings last year or this year.

 

[Rovin Romine]

All teams’ fans should demand excellence. Consecutive last place finishes is not excellence. Rumors of unloading the team’s closer - to save money - isn’t excellence. This isn’t even “pretty darn good.”

We became accustomed to a “win at all costs” mentality for the first half of John Henry’s ownership. It’s a huge let down to not compete. And the Red Sox are not built to compete in 2024.

You're aware we had consecutive last place finishes in 2014-2015?

 

[Rovin Romine]

While I don’t have time to compile the data,

You do. This is not a race.

 

[Semper Fenway]

You do. This is not a race.

I don’t have enough time in my personal life/free time to do so. So if you want to wait two weeks just so you can prove someone wrong on the Internet, so be it.

 

[Semper Fenway]

You're aware we had consecutive last place finishes in 2014-2015?

Of course. But they were spending during that time frame.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

While I don’t have time to compile the data, think about the following names: Curt Schilling, Keith Foulke, Daisuke, J.D. Martinez, Johnny Damon, Pablo Sandoval, Carl Crawford, and so many more.

Even without looking at any other offseasons, there were no major signings last year or this year.

Yoshida and Story weren’t major signings? They were in all the papers, even here:

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/trevor-story-has-signed-with-the-boston-red-sox.36118/

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-sign-masataka-yoshida.38210/

Also Kenley: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-sign-kenley-jansen.38201/

 

[Semper Fenway]

I don’t think they were elite signings. Story, according to many in sports media, was a “cheaper alternative” to Xander. Yoshida is a nice player, but I don’t think he’s elite. Jansen is a quality closer, but most would argue that his age puts him past his prime.

None of those three compare to Schilling or Foulke, for example.

Yoshida and Story weren’t major signings? They were in all the papers, even here:

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/trevor-story-has-signed-with-the-boston-red-sox.36118/

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-sign-masataka-yoshida.38210/

Also Kenley: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-sign-kenley-jansen.38201/

Yoshida and Story weren’t major signings? They were in all the papers, even here:

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/trevor-story-has-signed-with-the-boston-red-sox.36118/

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-sign-masataka-yoshida.38210/

Also Kenley: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/red-sox-sign-kenley-jansen.38201/
[/QUOTE]

 

[jbupstate]

None of those three compare to Schilling or Foulke, for example.

González, Crawford and Panda were major signings. Last few years Xander, Rodon, DeGrom and Correa. Add Willson Contreras and Nimmo.

Everyone wants a Cole or Seager.

Spending on “elite” free agents doesn’t guarantee shit.

imagine if the Punto trade never happened.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

@Semper Fenway it takes about five minutes to compile a decent list of FA signings they have made since Henry bought the team. You seem to have time based on your posts this morning.
On that short list you made two stuck out as pretty bad signings. You could also add Renteria to that list. And others both good and bad. And one of the biggest signings was also one of the smallest dollar ones.

If you're going to post here and give your opinion on something you need to back it up. If you don't have time to do the research then wait until you do. Because you "didn't have the time" this thread has now gone off the rails a bit.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

While I don’t have time to compile the data, think about the following names: Curt Schilling, Keith Foulke, Daisuke, J.D. Martinez, Johnny Damon, Pablo Sandoval, Carl Crawford, and so many more.

Even without looking at any other offseasons, there were no major signings last year or this year.

Lucas Giolito
Masataka Yoshida
Kenley Jansen
Chris Martin
Justin Turner
Adam Duvall
Corey Kluber

That's all within the last 13 months. Okay, maybe not all "major" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but those are signings to eight figure contracts. Not every signing is going to be a megastar headliner, but it's not like they're sitting on their hands doing nothing.

 

[VORP Speed]

Even without looking at any other offseasons, there were no major signings last year or this year.

I always suspected the Devers signing was fake news! 12th largest contract in baseball history for a soon to be DH????

 

[absintheofmalaise]

I'd like to thank the people that took the time to do some research on FA signings to back up what they posted.

 

[gibreel]

This argument revolves around whether Red Sox spending has kept pace with the league, or not. Whether they signed free agents is secondary to what Semper originally wrote, which concerned overall spending. Insisting he now back up his arguments with data about free agents is a clever way to distract from the fundamental and irrefutable fact that the Sox are no longer one of the highest spending teams in the game, and have not been for some time.
This kind of attack on a very basic point is one of the reasons why this board has been detached from reality for at least a year. The average fan’s perspective, taken in aggregate, has been more accurate than the average SoSHer. For reference, just check out last year’s projected season win total thread. It’s a bloodbath. And some of those making the snarkiest comments now are those who were the most incorrect then. A little accountability never hurt anyone.

 

[CR67dream]

While I don’t have time to compile the data

I don’t have enough time in my personal life/free time to do so.

What the the hell are you wasting our time for then? You expect people to do your work for you? Sorry Dude, you join, you better be ready to spend a little time on your contributions, especially coming in hot like you did. That's what we do here. If you're not willing or able to do so, we don't have time for you. Is that understood?

 

[absintheofmalaise]

This argument revolves around whether Red Sox spending has kept pace with the league, or not. Whether they signed free agents is secondary to what Semper originally wrote, which concerned overall spending. Insisting he now back up his arguments with data about free agents is a clever way to distract from the fundamental and irrefutable fact that the Sox are no longer one of the highest spending teams in the game, and have not been for some time.
This kind of attack on a very basic point is one of the reasons why this board has been detached from reality for at least a year. The average fan’s perspective, taken in aggregate, has been more accurate than the average SoSHer. For reference, just check out last year’s projected season win total thread. It’s a bloodbath. And some of those making the snarkiest comments now are those who were the most incorrect then. A little accountability never hurt anyone.

No. The point about backing up his opinions with data is the point. That's what we do here. And to say you don't have time to look up the data and then post numerous times after that is bullshit. It literally took me no more than five minutes to look at three or four lists of FA signings since Henry bought the team. We welcome the average fan here, whatever the definition of an average fan is, but everyone needs to put in the work to back up their opinions.

 

[HfxBob]

Also, next year looks like it's going to be a good one for free agent pitchers. Much more so than this year. Waiting obviously runs the risk of those guys signing extensions with their current team, but you have to weigh that against the risk that the contract is going to turn out to suck.

Next year's class is potentially headed by Burnes and Fried, correct? They're great pitchers, but they'll also have reached their 30th birthday and will likely be looking for $250 million or so. Do $250 million deals for 30+ pitchers match up with the Red Sox goals any better than the pitchers who were available this year? It seems obvious they've been very averse to the kind of risks that come with those deals.

 

[gibreel]

What the the hell are you wasting our time for then? You expect people to do your work for you? Sorry Dude, you join, you better be ready to spend a little time on your contributions, especially coming in hot like you did. That's what we do here. If you're not willing or able to do so, we don't have time for you. Is that understood?

Why is he he on the hook to provide evidence for a secondary point to his original claim, which centered around overall spending? The facts on that are beyond dispute.
The burden of proof is on those who are claiming the Sox have not stopped spending relative to their peers. That claim is the center of the argument. If you think the Sox have not stopped spending relative to their peers, please provide evidence. Otherwise, stop bullying and making demands of people who are pointing out facts about payroll trends.

 

[gibreel]

No. The point about backing up his opinions with data is the point. That's what we do here. And to say you don't have time to look up the data and then post numerous times after that is bullshit. It literally took me no more than five minutes to look at three or four lists of FA signings since Henry bought the team. We welcome the average fan here, whatever the definition of an average fan is, but everyone needs to put in the work to back up their opinions.

Sure. So if you dispute his original point—that the Sox are no longer spending at levels they used to, relative to their peers—please provide evidence.

 

[CR67dream]

While I don’t have time to compile the data

I don’t have enough time in my personal life/free time to do so.

What the the hell are you wasting our time for then? You expect people to do your work for you? Sorry Dude, you join, you better be ready to spend a little time on your contributions, especially coming in hot like you did. That's what we do here. If you're not willing or able to do so, we don't have time for you. Is that understood?

Why is he he on the hook to provide evidence for a secondary point to his original claim, which centered around overall spending? The facts on that are beyond dispute.
The burden of proof is on those who are claiming the Sox have not stopped spending relative to their peers. That claim is the center of the argument. If you think the Sox have not stopped spending relative to their peers, please provide evidence. Otherwise, stop bullying and making demands of people who are pointing out facts about payroll trends.

Bullying? Are you nuts? Abs covered it, and anyone who says they don't have time to back up their shit can take a hike. He started the thread, he needs to prove his point. Any other questions PM me.

 

[gibreel]

What the the hell are you wasting our time for then? You expect people to do your work for you? Sorry Dude, you join, you better be ready to spend a little time on your contributions, especially coming in hot like you did. That's what we do here. If you're not willing or able to do so, we don't have time for you. Is that understood?


Bullying? Are you nuts? Abs covered it, and anyone who says they don't have time to back up their shit can take a hike. He started the thread, he needs to prove his point. Any other questions PM me.

He has provided evidence. He’s made straightforward claims about the fact that the Sox payroll was once regularly at or near the top and no longer is. Rather than engaging with this irrefutable point, people have treated him hostilely and now demanding that he provide vague data about “free agents.”
The behavior of folks on this thread, including mods, does a lot to explain why SoSH has been so detached from reality. The average fan was almost certainly better than the average SoSHer last year at predicting the team’s win total. Would be nice if there was some self reflection on this point.