Is this a playoff team?

How good are the Red Sox?


  • Total voters
    511

bressoud

New Member
Sep 30, 2024
14
I think they'll be 5-6 wins better than last year with even "average" injury luck. They have redundancy in the rotation and middle infield that eliminates the Kyle Barracloughs and Enmanuel Valdezes who got so much playing time the last few years. I hope/expect they'll be an exciting team to watch, and as presently constituted will blow some winnable games due to bad C/IF defense and a thin bullpen.
Last offseason, Houck/Crawford were ?s and the rotation included Giolito AND Sale. Abreu was an unknown; we debated whether Duran's excellent 2023 was BABIP-driven, or if he could play decent defense. They're in so much better shape now.
The optimistic/pessimistic debate, to me, is driven by distrust of the ownership.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
One thing I will add in here.

I mentioned earlier that a major difference in projecting this team to be "pretty good" as opposed to projecting any of 2022, 2023 and 2024 to be "pretty good" is the addition - for the first time in about half a decade - of a top of the rotation starting pitcher. I stand by that on the "optimist" side.

On the "pessimist" side, I think this idea that 2b was a black hole of suck because of Enmanuel Valdez and now boom - anything is a massive improvement is also wildly overstated. Valdez didn't get all that much time last season. It's not like he had 600 PA or 400PA or even 300PA, only had about 225PA last season. I know that neither played exclusively 2b (for the record, neither did Valdez) but Hamilton (around 320PA) and Gonzalez (also around 220PA) both played just as much if not more, and Grissom himself got around 115PA. I like Grissom too (and I really, really, really like Campbell) but saying that simply going from Valdez to "not Valdez" at 2b is a huge improvement isn't the full picture. It was only about 1/3 of the season of Valdez at 2b. 2/3 of the season were guys like Hamilton/Gonzalez/Grissom.

The question isn't so much is Grissom or whatever better than Valdez (yes, of course). It's how much better is a full season of Grissom (or whatever) as opposed to lets say (40% of a season of Hamilton + 25% of a season of Gonzalez + 30% of a season of Valdez + 15% of a season of Grissom). Then the calculation becomes a bit murkier.

Which of course is why I think (based on the roster at present) the optimal configuration going into the season - both for the 2025 Red Sox and the "window" should be 1b - Casas, 2b - Grissom / Hamilton (with the other in AAA), 3b - Campbell, SS - Story, LF - Anthony, CF - Duran, RF - Abreu, DH - Devers. Bench, Rafaela, Refsnyder, Yoshida and something that catches.

But looking at 2b for increased production is not nearly as easy as saying "anything besides Valdez is a massive improvement."
 
Last edited:

bosox1534

New Member
Dec 17, 2022
344
They don't play in the AL Central, though, and never will, so it's perfectly fair.
So because they have worse competition that means that the talent level of those teams are better than the Red Sox who face much stiffer completion? If you take out the games against the White Sox the Royals and Tigers would’ve barely been above .500 last year. To say they aren’t even close to the same level is just wrong.
 

bosox1534

New Member
Dec 17, 2022
344
They were 16-17 versus the AL Central last season including 3 losses to the White Sox.
That’s a smaller sample size, so you’d have to double the amount of games against the AL Central and take away half of the games against the AL East. You’ve got to assume their record against the AL Central would be better than their record against the AL East after 50 games. Like I said though, my point is that to say that they aren’t close same level currently isn’t fair at all. If the Red Sox finished ahead of the Royals and Tigers this season nobody would be shocked.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,014
One thing I will add in here.

I mentioned earlier that a major difference in projecting this team to be "pretty good" as opposed to projecting any of 2022, 2023 and 2024 to be "pretty good" is the addition - for the first time in about half a decade - of a top of the rotation starting pitcher. I stand by that on the "optimist" side.

On the "pessimist" side, I think this idea that 2b was a black hole of suck because of Enmanuel Valdez and now boom - anything is a massive improvement is also wildly overstated. Valdez didn't get all that much time last season. It's not like he had 600 PA or 400PA or even 300PA, only had about 225PA last season. I know that neither played exclusively 2b (for the record, neither did Valdez) but Hamilton (around 320PA) and Gonzalez (also around 220PA) both played just as much if not more, and Grissom himself got around 115PA. I like Grissom too (and I really, really, really like Campbell) but saying that simply going from Valdez to "not Valdez" at 2b is a huge improvement isn't the full picture. It was only about 1/3 of the season of Valdez at 2b. 2/3 of the season were guys like Hamilton/Gonzalez/Grissom.

The question isn't so much is Grissom or whatever better than Valdez (yes, of course). It's how much better is a full season of Grissom (or whatever) as opposed to lets say (40% of a season of Hamilton + 25% of a season of Gonzalez + 30% of a season of Valdez + 15% of a season of Grissom). Then the calculation becomes a bit murkier.

Which of course is why I think (based on the roster at present) the optimal configuration going into the season - both for the 2025 Red Sox and the "window" should be 1b - Casas, 2b - Grissom / Hamilton (with the other in AAA), 3b - Campbell, SS - Story, LF - Anthony, CF - Duran, RF - Abreu, DH - Devers. Bench, Rafaela, Refsnyder, Yoshida and something that catches.

But looking at 2b for increased production is not nearly as easy as saying "anything besides Valdez is a massive improvement."
Anything besides Valdez is a massive improvement.

94707

Anything beside 2024 is a massive improvement really. That's a ton of small samples where they were collectively all terrible during their stints at the position and replacing it with a healthy Grissom or Campbell is a 3-4 WAR bump at least.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,697
That’s a smaller sample size, so you’d have to double the amount of games against the AL Central and take away half of the games against the AL East. You’ve got to assume their record against the AL Central would be better than their record against the AL East after 50 games. Like I said though, my point is that to say that they aren’t close same level currently isn’t fair at all. If the Red Sox finished ahead of the Royals and Tigers this season nobody would be shocked.
It's the only sample size we have. And it's not like it's 5 games either. To blithely assert that the 2024 Red Sox would have had a better record than the Royals or Tigers and then to casually wave away evidence to the contrary is just silly.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
Anything beside 2024 is a massive improvement really. That's a ton of small samples where they were collectively all terrible during their stints at the position and replacing it with a healthy Grissom or Campbell is a 3-4 WAR bump at least.
This is of course fair to say, I just don't think it's as easy to get there as some others do. 287PA came from guys that are already here (Hamilton, Grissom and Gonzalez) and that we're projecting in there already, and 202PA came from Valdez. You're still not asking them to just be better than Valdez, or that's not the whole story.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,376
One thing I will add in here.

I mentioned earlier that a major difference in projecting this team to be "pretty good" as opposed to projecting any of 2022, 2023 and 2024 to be "pretty good" is the addition - for the first time in about half a decade - of a top of the rotation starting pitcher. I stand by that on the "optimist" side.

On the "pessimist" side, I think this idea that 2b was a black hole of suck because of Enmanuel Valdez and now boom - anything is a massive improvement is also wildly overstated. Valdez didn't get all that much time last season. It's not like he had 600 PA or 400PA or even 300PA, only had about 225PA last season. I know that neither played exclusively 2b (for the record, neither did Valdez) but Hamilton (around 320PA) and Gonzalez (also around 220PA) both played just as much if not more, and Grissom himself got around 115PA. I like Grissom too (and I really, really, really like Campbell) but saying that simply going from Valdez to "not Valdez" at 2b is a huge improvement isn't the full picture. It was only about 1/3 of the season of Valdez at 2b. 2/3 of the season were guys like Hamilton/Gonzalez/Grissom.

The question isn't so much is Grissom or whatever better than Valdez (yes, of course). It's how much better is a full season of Grissom (or whatever) as opposed to lets say (40% of a season of Hamilton + 25% of a season of Gonzalez + 30% of a season of Valdez + 15% of a season of Grissom). Then the calculation becomes a bit murkier.

Which of course is why I think (based on the roster at present) the optimal configuration going into the season - both for the 2025 Red Sox and the "window" should be 1b - Casas, 2b - Grissom / Hamilton (with the other in AAA), 3b - Campbell, SS - Story, LF - Anthony, CF - Duran, RF - Abreu, DH - Devers. Bench, Rafaela, Refsnyder, Yoshida and something that catches.

But looking at 2b for increased production is not nearly as easy as saying "anything besides Valdez is a massive improvement."
I'm optimistic about "anything besides Red Sox 2024 second baseman" being a massive improvement because as a whole, the Sox 2B crew had an OPS of .532 last year, which was the lowest number for any team in MLB. I anticipate that Grissom or Campbell will have an OPS that is above .700, which would put the team in the top-12 in MLB and would go a long way toward improving the team's offense.
 

bosox1534

New Member
Dec 17, 2022
344
It's the only sample size we have. And it's not like it's 5 games either. To blithely assert that the 2024 Red Sox would have had a better record than the Royals or Tigers and then to casually wave away evidence to the contrary is just silly.
Fine, throw away the comment regarding the AL Central records. Even though the AL East is a much much better division and no team even close to the level of the White Sox. But sure use their record against the Central last year and double that. That wasn’t really supposed to be my point. My point was that the Red Sox Royals and Tigers are really similar talent levels on paper at the moment, so to say they aren’t close to the same level as those teams is not fair.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,014
This is of course fair to say, I just don't think it's as easy to get there as some others do. 287PA came from guys that are already here (Hamilton, Grissom and Gonzalez) and that we're projecting in there already, and 202PA came from Valdez. You're still not asking them to just be better than Valdez, or that's not the whole story.
I think you're underappreciating just how special our 2B situation was last year. That collective -2.3 fwar was the second lowest mark at the position in the last 20 years among all teams, trailing only the 52 win 2021 Orioles. It's really difficult to be that bad over a full season!
 

flredsoxfan

New Member
May 29, 2012
26
Boca Raton, FL
I am looking for 6 or 7 more wins on the low end and maybe as many as 12 or 13 on the high side. I would love to see 140 games out of Story and for Grissom to play to his abilities. Like many folks here I'm hoping they are not done adding before the 2025 season. I belong to the "prospects are suspects" camp until they have some time and prove themselves and I was pleasantly surprised by Abreu but I am also not enthusiastic about Durran being able to repeat his 2024 performance. I believe the starting pitching will be worth 6 or 7 more wins and that's the reason for my optimism.
 

Late Yclept Chanticleer

Wily Mo No Mo'
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,446
Boston
Fine, throw away the comment regarding the AL Central records. That wasn’t really supposed to be my point. My point was that the Red Sox Royals and Tigers are really similar talent levels on paper at the moment, so to say they aren’t close to the same level as those teams is not fair.
Games aren’t played “on paper,“ though. And I was referring to their relative levels of success, where the Red Sox were inarguably not up to the Tigers’s or Royals’s level. The Tigers and Royals built teams that were able to compete and succeed against the field they knew full well they were up against from the get go. Talent levels on paper mean something between doodly and squat. The Red Sox didn’t build a team capable of competing with their peers, so they fall short of the other teams’ level.
 
Last edited:

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
I'm optimistic about "anything besides Red Sox 2024 second baseman" being a massive improvement because as a whole, the Sox 2B crew had an OPS of .532 last year, which was the lowest number for any team in MLB. I anticipate that Grissom or Campbell will have an OPS that is above .700, which would put the team in the top-12 in MLB and would go a long way toward improving the team's offense.
I think you're underappreciating just how special our 2B situation was last year. That collective -2.3 fwar was the second lowest mark at the position in the last 20 years among all teams, trailing only the 52 win 2021 Orioles. It's really difficult to be that bad over a full season!
Yeah, it was terrible. I'm not disputing that. But it's not often "that" easy. We were probably saying the same thing about 2b last year (heck, I know I was) as there was no way I thought anything could be as bad as Christian Arroyo in 2023, and it was. Or nothing could be as bad as Kike Hernandez et al from SS in 2023 and 2024 was pretty awful too.

I want to be clear that unlike some of the players I'm saying I don't want to count on that Grissom - for me at least - is different. I truly like the player (and even with hindsight, I STILL make the Sale for Grissom deal) but I think it's important to at least note that he now has more MLB PA of awful performance than he does good performance. Yes there are extenuating circumstances, but I think we need to at least acknowledge the possibility that he's just another in the long list of guys that can't translate AAA to MLB success long term.

This would be fine if it were just replacing 2b, but you also have a massive unknown at SS. Also those two massive unknowns are what a lot of people are thinking are going to be the silver bullet to the atrocious 3b defense we can otherwise expect. It's a lot of "Rube Goldberg" machine style things that need to go right in order to make the infield good. Forced to guess - one goes "right" and the other goes "wrong" and the other repeats itself. I think it's a really tough spot for Breslow to be honest. Two unknowns up the middle of the infield and a horrible defensive 3b, that makes it tough to predict them all going right.


Again - I don't think they all need to go right to be a good team. Mostly because the rotation and the starting depth is quite simply light years ahead of the garbage we've been rolling out following the 2021 season. But I think it's also fair to "assume" that not all three of those things on the infield are going to go right.
 

chawson

Hoping for delivery
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,208
This would be fine if it were just replacing 2b, but you also have a massive unknown at SS. Also those two massive unknowns are what a lot of people are thinking are going to be the silver bullet to the atrocious 3b defense we can otherwise expect. It's a lot of "Rube Goldberg" machine style things that need to go right in order to make the infield good. Forced to guess - one goes "right" and the other goes "wrong" and the other repeats itself. I think it's a really tough spot for Breslow to be honest. Two unknowns up the middle of the infield and a horrible defensive 3b, that makes it tough to predict them all going right.
Yes but as @nvalvo has pointed out a couple times, the difference between this year and the last couple is that if Story gets hurt again, we've got Campbell and even Mayer just about ready to plug in. Hamilton, a 2.7 bWAR platoon player last year, is also a helpful guy to have in the mix, and Romy, a good short-side platoon bat, looked able to handle SS last year too.

That seems like very substantial depth. If every single one of those guys gets hurt or flops, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
Yes but as @nvalvo has pointed out a couple times, the difference between this year and the last couple is that if Story gets hurt again, we've got Campbell and even Mayer just about ready to plug in. Hamilton, a 2.7 bWAR platoon player last year, is also a helpful guy to have in the mix, and Romy, a good short-side platoon bat, looked able to handle SS last year too.

That seems like very substantial depth. If every single one of those guys gets hurt or flops, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, but if we're lumping Hamilton, Grissom and Gonzalez in with the "problem" of 2b last year, it seems a large jump to count on them in some capacity and then just marking it up as an unquestioned, no doubt about it, massive upgrade.

Or, put another way, I think the team has a lot of really good depth, and I agree totally there. Campbell is the only one that I'm reasonably confident projects (at this point in their careers) to be someone you'd want starting if you were drawing it up. (We can all agree to disagree that I prefer to look at the most recent MLB seasons of data to project going forward and others do not, as I still subscribe to the 3,2,1 season data similar to Marcel's old school projections, and it's admittedly always going to have us project differently).


The depth is really good - and in many ways I think that sets a reasonable floor, but I also think that in many ways it also caps the ceiling because decision makers can be against the risk (yes, there is risk) associated with the rewards that could be gained. Or, to turn the adage around, it allows the good to become the enemy of the great.


And again, just to be clear, I think the team as is should be around 86 wins and right in the thick of it for WC2 and WC3. I think they'll be good. As constructed, I also don't think they'll be great.
 
Last edited:

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,912
Row 14
I am looking for 6 or 7 more wins on the low end and maybe as many as 12 or 13 on the high side. I would love to see 140 games out of Story and for Grissom to play to his abilities. Like many folks here I'm hoping they are not done adding before the 2025 season. I belong to the "prospects are suspects" camp until they have some time and prove themselves and I was pleasantly surprised by Abreu but I am also not enthusiastic about Durran being able to repeat his 2024 performance. I believe the starting pitching will be worth 6 or 7 more wins and that's the reason for my optimism.
How? The difference between the Red Sox staff and the best staff in baseball was 8 wins last year with 5.5 of those wins being from the rotation. The Red Sox still don't have the best rotation in baseball and probably jumped up 2-3 wins this offseason with their pick ups. That means you are looking for 4 to 5 wins plus the 1-2 win gap between O'Neill and playing Rafaela to pick up those ABs. Lets be generous and say only 6 wins. Last year the Red Sox got 3.5 WAR out of SS. I don't think even with a magical Trevor Story healthy season that is going to improve much. That means you need to improve 1B and 2B. I can buy Casas improving 1B by 3-3.5 wins but it is going tough for Grissom/Campbell to do the same 2.5-3.0.

If everything goes right you might be able to get to that 6 win mark. 12 to 13? You need multiple break out stars plus Dever and Crochet having career seasons. We are talking two to three Red Sox in the top ten of MVP voting plus two Cy Young candidates.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,014
That means you need to improve 1B and 2B. I can buy Casas improving 1B by 3-3.5 wins but it is going tough for Grissom/Campbell to do the same 2.5-3.0.
Given that 2B was -2.3 fwar for us last year, it really won't be hard at all.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,376
Yeah, it was terrible. I'm not disputing that. But it's not often "that" easy. We were probably saying the same thing about 2b last year (heck, I know I was) as there was no way I thought anything could be as bad as Christian Arroyo in 2023, and it was. Or nothing could be as bad as Kike Hernandez et al from SS in 2023 and 2024 was pretty awful too.

I want to be clear that unlike some of the players I'm saying I don't want to count on that Grissom - for me at least - is different. I truly like the player (and even with hindsight, I STILL make the Sale for Grissom deal) but I think it's important to at least note that he now has more MLB PA of awful performance than he does good performance. Yes there are extenuating circumstances, but I think we need to at least acknowledge the possibility that he's just another in the long list of guys that can't translate AAA to MLB success long term.

This would be fine if it were just replacing 2b, but you also have a massive unknown at SS. Also those two massive unknowns are what a lot of people are thinking are going to be the silver bullet to the atrocious 3b defense we can otherwise expect. It's a lot of "Rube Goldberg" machine style things that need to go right in order to make the infield good. Forced to guess - one goes "right" and the other goes "wrong" and the other repeats itself. I think it's a really tough spot for Breslow to be honest. Two unknowns up the middle of the infield and a horrible defensive 3b, that makes it tough to predict them all going right.


Again - I don't think they all need to go right to be a good team. Mostly because the rotation and the starting depth is quite simply light years ahead of the garbage we've been rolling out following the 2021 season. But I think it's also fair to "assume" that not all three of those things on the infield are going to go right.
In this case, improving performance at 2B, I think it is that easy. They were historically bad last year and they have two options who have a good chance to be above average players. Now, both Grissom and Campbell could suck, but having two legit players lined up puts the Sox is a really good situation, and even if both underperform this year, I still think production from 2B will be better than last year.

In comparison, improving at SS is not easy, since Story is the clear option and has huge question marks about his health and performance, his replacements aren't quite ready (Mayer) or have questions at the position (Campbell), and his contract will buy him a long rope.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
In this case, improving performance at 2B, I think it is that easy. They were historically bad last year and they have two options who have a good chance to be above average players. Now, both Grissom and Campbell could suck, but having two legit players lined up puts the Sox is a really good situation, and even if both underperform this year, I still think production from 2B will be better than last year.

In comparison, improving at SS is not easy, since Story is the clear option and has huge question marks about his health and performance, his replacements aren't quite ready (Mayer) or have questions at the position (Campbell), and his contract will buy him a long rope.
That's fair. I think it's certainly fine to have Campbell penciled in as a "vast improvement" to one of those spots, and 2b is fine for me. I'm arguing against it being some slam dunk / how could anyone possibly think otherwise that 2025 Grissom, Hamilton and Gonzalez is demonstrably better than 2024 Valdez, Hamilton, Grissom, Gonzalez, assorted other dreck. Campbell, no argument.

Which still leaves the massive question mark at SS - which also limits the infield defense improvement as the entire argument (for those making it, and keep in mind I think Devers is an excellent bat and a horrid defensive 3b) of the 3b defense not being as big of an issue.

I'll bite on one of those three being likely (and I agree the most sure way to do it is Campbell at 2b) , but all 3, not so much. Which is why I continue to say that as is, they're a "good team" but highly unlikely to be a great one (and it's why I personally think people arguing either extreme are off base). I'd be incredibly shocked if the present team won 88 or more games. I'd also be incredibly shocked if they only won 82 or fewer.
 

Late Yclept Chanticleer

Wily Mo No Mo'
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,446
Boston
You know you can bet on things like this. Sox are +1000 to win the AL Tigers +1300 and Royals +1600. Those people seem to disagree with your assesment.
What? How are betting lines dispositive? In any circumstance? I don't gamble and neither follow nor give a hoot about gambling's conventional wisdom. I don't even know what those +numbers are supposed to convey about everyone's relative chances vis a vis Dice Island's body politics expectations.Why should this set of numbers, which I presume will lose regular people at least scores of millions of dollars over the next nine months, affect my opinion on anything?

Furthermore, and more specifically, how do betting lines for next season somehow disprove my "assesment" that the Red Sox did not make the playoffs in 2024 whereas the Tigers and Royals did? My point is that until the Sox show on the field that they are a playoff team, they aren't one. And vice versa for the AL Central teams in discussion.
 

Archer1979

shazowies
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
9,141
Right Here
They could be. I think that they are closer to being a playoff team than last year but it depends on a lot of things going right.

First, the top of the rotation is vastly improved with Crochet. If he delivers as advertised, having an ace will go a long way. It also has the cascading effect with the Houck and Bello so there will not be as much pressure on them to carry the rotation.

Second, I'm assuming that at least one of Anthony, Campbell, or Mayer breaks camp with the Sox on Opening Day. That has some obvious risk, but even if their transition is smooth, young ballplayers tend to lead to a streaky ball club. That works if the streak favors the winning side more than the losing, but its chancey.

Third, the infield defense is scary. Story needs to stay healthy. Devers needs to be a serviceable fielder. Casas needs to keep improving. Second base is a big question mark. Second base, to me, has always been on of those positions where solid defense is a must, anything from the bat other than a black hole is a plus.

Fourth, NY and Baltimore need to regress. Its possible, but not probable, especially for NY. Losing Soto hurts them, but adding what they have, with the notable inclusion of Max Fried, has them either staying the same or improving. All comes down to how their veterans age and how their youth improves.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
8,435
This Over the Monster article has a nice grid of past top three prospects from BP. I am trying to drop it in here but maybe follow the linkage to see it. This is the extension calculus.
Crossposting but this is interesting in terms of projecting Anthony and Campbell who BP just named top 3 prospects.

94722


Of those 17 names, I would call 9 of them “MVP types,” as in players I would not be surprised to see win an MVP. And, in fact, 10 of them have already received MVP votes (with Acuna winning the award, of course), and that doesn’t even include Franco, who likely would’ve received votes at some point. So let me say this louder to make sure it’s clear: 10 of 17 top-3 BP prospects from 2016-2022 have already received MVP votes, and the Red Sox currently have two such players
Only one true "bust" here, Jo Adell. (Reyes succumbed to arm injuries.)

Would be fascinated to see how many of these guys got off to huge starts. But a quick scan of the list says quite a few of them!
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
1,620
Crossposting but this is interesting in terms of projecting Anthony and Campbell who BP just named top 3 prospects.

View attachment 94722




Only one true "bust" here, Jo Adell. (Reyes succumbed to arm injuries.)

Would be fascinated to see how many of these guys got off to huge starts. But a quick scan of the list says quite a few of them!
The odds are about 50-50 that in the second half either Anthony or Campbell are the best positional players on the team.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
1,620
True. The Tigers and Royals both made it to the playoffs last year, Sox are not even close to their level.
That comparison was about spending.
The Royals payroll is $114, according to Sporttrac. The Tigers is $105.
The Red Sox are at $211, according to Red Sox payrolls.
I will repeat - the teams are not comparable to the Red Sox.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
33,179
Alamogordo
That comparison was about spending.
The Royals payroll is $114, according to Sporttrac. The Tigers is $105.
The Red Sox are at $211, according to Red Sox payrolls.
I will repeat - the teams are not comparable to the Red Sox.
Not to mention 4 of the top 15 payrolls in the league exist in the AL East, and the other is Tampa, who, thankfully, seem to be seeing their magic pitching dust start to wear off as children stop believing in fairies.

Not a single team in the AL Central rises above 17th in payroll.

The teams have distinctly different challenges when it comes to making the playoffs.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
7,611
As much as anyone here says that the Sox "need lots of stuff to work out right".... of course the same can be said for NYY's (how good will Cole be going forward?) Does anyone really think Stanton will be Playoff Stanton? Their bullpen could be great. If there's one thing on that team that I think looks like it SHOULD be very good, it should be the bullpen. Otherwise both their rotation and lineup are full of question marks outside of Judge... and Judge's age and position (defense is declining.... maybe he'll rebound in RF?) should at least start to see the beginnings of a question mark forming. Anyone really think Gil will pitch like he did last season- similarly to Houck, he was great and then not so great and then stabilized. I just don't see either the O's or NYY's (only two teams I think are likely "better" than the Sox) as a more stable bet to assume good luck and good health.
As of 1/14/25
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,912
Row 14
That comparison was about spending.
The Royals payroll is $114, according to Sporttrac. The Tigers is $105.
The Red Sox are at $211, according to Red Sox payrolls.
I will repeat - the teams are not comparable to the Red Sox.
Right now the Red Sox are at 158 million for 2025, dead center of payroll in MLB.

That said the Red Sox have 13 players under contracts (everyone else is under cost control)

Of those contracts, 3 are hopelessly underwater in value (Yoshida, Story, Giolito) which is over a third of their payroll. That doesn't count Sandoval or Chapman.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,912
Row 14
As much as anyone here says that the Sox "need lots of stuff to work out right".... of course the same can be said for NYY's (how good will Cole be going forward?) Does anyone really think Stanton will be Playoff Stanton? Their bullpen could be great. If there's one thing on that team that I think looks like it SHOULD be very good, it should be the bullpen. Otherwise both their rotation and lineup are full of question marks outside of Judge... and Judge's age and position (defense is declining.... maybe he'll rebound in RF?) should at least start to see the beginnings of a question mark forming. Anyone really think Gil will pitch like he did last season- similarly to Houck, he was great and then not so great and then stabilized. I just don't see either the O's or NYY's (only two teams I think are likely "better" than the Sox) as a more stable bet to assume good luck and good health.
As of 1/14/25
They have a much higher floor than the Red Sox. Judge would have to be out the year for the Red Sox to start being comparable in a conversation. Even if Judge has a down year like 2023 or 2021 he would be more valuable than any of the Red Sox players minus possibly Duran.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
7,611
They have a much higher floor than the Red Sox. Judge would have to be out the year for the Red Sox to start being comparable in a conversation. Even if Judge has a down year like 2023 or 2021 he would be more valuable than any of the Red Sox players minus possibly Duran.
If Judge ruptures his Achilles in ST and is out for the year, the Yankees are less than a .500 team. Duran could do the same and the Sox are still likely better than a .500 team. Talent on the Sox is still more spread out. Likely that would mean Rafaela is starting in CF. He wouldn't have the offense but the difference between him and Rafaela to Judge to ? is vast.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
8,435
They have a much higher floor than the Red Sox. Judge would have to be out the year for the Red Sox to start being comparable in a conversation. Even if Judge has a down year like 2023 or 2021 he would be more valuable than any of the Red Sox players minus possibly Duran.
I think I agree for the most part, but Judge will be 33 next year. Last year was his best year basically ever, and I don't see him repeating it. A lot of players do start to slow down around then these days, and sometimes rather suddenly. But I wouldn't bet on it with him, given he's a monster. I'd still say there's a good chance he's somewhere around a 170 wrc+, but if goes back to being a more pedestrian 130-150...well, that could be a major issue for the Yankees. I'd give that about a 50-50% chance of happening, given hi sage.

The bigger question is how much losing Soto hurts them (that's somewhere around an 8 WAR player), and if Cole can stay healthy and effective at 34 years old. Fried should be a big boost to their rotation, though, marginalizing Stroman. Bellinger and Goldschmidt...I wouldn't be very optimistic there. Bellinger might be an average player and Goldschmidt might be cooked.

They were a 94 win team last year--losing Soto and adding Fried, with everyone a year older? They're probably somewhere around a 90 win team I think, and closer to 85-88 if Judge starts to show some wear or misses time.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
The Red Sox payroll relative to the CBT sits at $209 million per Cots. Jen McCaffrey of The Athletic has it at $211 million in yesterday's report.
If anyone cares, Red Sox payroll (on Twitter) has recently removed Fulmer (wisely, I think) and counting his salary. Being left unprotected in the R5 draft and when you look at the bullpen having (as of 1/14/25) Hendriks, Chapman, Slaten, Whitlock, Crawford and Wilson, I think there is virtually no chance that Fulmer is brought up on his current deal, and thus the additional "bump" for those who track such things.

Puts the Sox at almost exactly $30m below $LTT1.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
21,912
Row 14
The Red Sox payroll relative to the CBT sits at $209 million per Cots. Jen McCaffrey of The Athletic has it at $211 million in yesterday's report.
OK but we were talking about salaried payroll. I mean they go from 15th to 12th when you look at their CBT over payroll. It is mostly the difference between Whitlock, Bello, and Rafaela's AAV and real salary. Worrying about the CBT number when you are 40 million under is weird unless the Red Sox are looking to give Alonso a short term deal.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,014
If you're thinking about adding ~20-30m in extensions, you're getting pretty close to CBT without adding FA or deadline guys at all.

Not saying that should stop them, but the CBT is a meaningful consideration based on where they currently are and given their stated intentions.
 

chawson

Hoping for delivery
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
5,208
OK but we were talking about salaried payroll. I mean they go from 15th to 12th when you look at their CBT over payroll. It is mostly the difference between Whitlock, Bello, and Rafaela's AAV and real salary. Worrying about the CBT number when you are 40 million under is weird unless the Red Sox are looking to give Alonso a short term deal.
Are you sure? Not seeing that established in the thread. How do you know others are on the same page?

Most payroll measurements for our purposes make sense relative to the CBT. I’m not sure what reason there would be to measure spending by narrowly comparing 2025 salaried payroll against other teams and not also factor other costs, like the total contract values, total expenses of non-roster baseball operations across the franchise, etc.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,979
Maine
If anyone cares, Red Sox payroll (on Twitter) has recently removed Fulmer (wisely, I think) and counting his salary. Being left unprotected in the R5 draft and when you look at the bullpen having (as of 1/14/25) Hendriks, Chapman, Slaten, Whitlock, Crawford and Wilson, I think there is virtually no chance that Fulmer is brought up on his current deal, and thus the additional "bump" for those who track such things.

Puts the Sox at almost exactly $30m below $LTT1.
Why was Fulmer being counted at all? He's not on the 40-man roster. He's never been on the 40-man roster. His salary is irrelevant until he's added to the 40-man, if he ever is, and it's not like it's a backbreaker of a salary either ($1.5M + incentives)
 

Kull

wannabe merloni
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
1,787
El Paso, TX
The Sox were the second worst defensive team in Baseball (based on errors-per-game), and haven't done anything to address that. That's the sort of thing which devours pitching staffs over the course of a season. An interesting team and mostly entertaining, but unlikely to be much better than 2024. So no, not "playoffs" but not "lucky to get close to 500" either.
 

RS2004foreever

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2022
1,620
Right now the Red Sox are at 158 million for 2025, dead center of payroll in MLB.

That said the Red Sox have 13 players under contracts (everyone else is under cost control)

Of those contracts, 3 are hopelessly underwater in value (Yoshida, Story, Giolito) which is over a third of their payroll. That doesn't count Sandoval or Chapman.
I trust Ref Sox payrolls more than you.
You made a statement that is demonstrably false.
Period.

Nice try at moving the goal post though.
 
Last edited:

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,858
Why was Fulmer being counted at all? He's not on the 40-man roster. He's never been on the 40-man roster. His salary is irrelevant until he's added to the 40-man, if he ever is, and it's not like it's a backbreaker of a salary either ($1.5M + incentives)
No idea why Sox Payroll decide to count him. But they did, and at the full ~$3m that he could have hit for incentives.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,014
The Sox were the second worst defensive team in Baseball (based on errors-per-game), and haven't done anything to address that. That's the sort of thing which devours pitching staffs over the course of a season. An interesting team and mostly entertaining, but unlikely to be much better than 2024. So no, not "playoffs" but not "lucky to get close to 500" either.
Who was our middle infield last year?
Who is our middle infield this year?
Care to try again?