Genuine question here, is your argument that there is a self imposed mandate to reduce payroll or a self imposed budget that is (generally) to stay below the LTT heading into a season. Because those are two very different things. I don’t think anyone is arguing they are actively trying to cut payroll just to cut payroll. A lot of people (self included) are arguing that in order to add payroll, they need to find a way to reduce some commitments to stay within that budget (which my guess is roughly $LTT - and I’ve been arguing that loooooooong before these articles came out, for the record).
They‘re very different arguments.
Also, as to the “prove it“ part, you’re basically arguing the negative (ie that something doesn’t exist) which is - in the logical reasoning sense - impossible to prove. It’s like saying, I can point to myriad scientific opinions, studies of environment, reams if data, and constant debunking of “eye witness” accounts, but there is literally nothing someone can point to and definitively prove that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.
I suppose in this circumstance one could find a “Firestone Tires” memo chain or someone could secretly install cameras in FSGs offices and get proof of FSG telling their FO repeatedly that a mandate exists. But is there no amount of ”testimony” and “supporting evidence” you will believe?
In which case sure, I’ll agree to not being omniscient nor omnipresent, and I’m sure others will too.
So maybe the best way to simply end this is for us all to agree that none of us can definitely prove our point, we can only look at the supporting evidence and arrive at our own conclusions (ie, trial by jury vs being all knowing). Logical theory aside…
I remain genuinely curious if you’re arguing the mandate to reduce payroll or the general annual mandate to balance the budget (which plenty of data, including their actions over the past half decade, indicates is roughly the LTT) which are two very different things.
For what it’s worth, I personally don’t believe the former, but certainly believe (and have for a long time) the latter.
Sure, I'll explain it again. There is no evidence to support the claim that there's a mandate from above to reduce payroll, from what I’ve seen. And there is no evidence to support the claim that there’s a mandate, or goal, to stay below the CBT threshold on a regular/annual basis for reasons besides resetting the tax every third year as stipulated by the current CBA.
This is a story because the Springfield Republican has pressed the issue incessantly, and it's taken hold in the fan base. Their Winter Weekend stories say the following:
- "throughout the winter,
industry speculation has centered around the possibility that principal owner John Henry...has set a self-imposed budget for 2024."
- "Boston's actions
have suggested a less expensive approach."
- "Boston’s actions have fallen well short of the November proclamation by team chairman Tom Werner that the team planned to go 'full throttle' in its attempts to build a contending roster for 2024 and with camp approaching,
it seems the organization is trying to lower expectations a bit."
- "Much like his predecessor, Chaim Bloom, Breslow said that the Red Sox are keeping one eye focused on the future, which eliminates some moves that would push the team closer to contention in 2024.
Reading between the lines, it seems as though Breslow’s internal audit of the organization revealed he doesn’t believe the team is close enough to a championship window to go all-in at this stage."
Those are not firm reports. In fact, it sure seems to me that this industry speculation
began with Cotillo and McAdam's coverage. They raised the question, or raised it on behalf of an "industry source" (an agent, possibly Boras). It has not been definitively answered by John Henry, because Henry doesn't often talk to the press, and the team's policy is not to discuss budget or payroll goals.
Believe me, I'm not in the habit of defending millionaires and billionaires for the sake of it. I'm coming at this like a journalist and news editor, because I am one.
What's been reported is Kennedy’s reply, when repeatedly pressed to name a payroll number, that the team will “probably” have a lower one, quickly followed with “I don't know that for sure” and "we don’t talk about specific payroll numbers." While the team did say that there is a basic operating budget, they declined to say a number. This seems normal to me. I'm sure there is, as always has been, some number below *unlimited*. But we have no more firm evidence that it’s $200 million this year than we do $270 million.
We also have several of the following statements:
Breslow:
"Whenever I’ve approached ownership with an idea I’ve been able to point to evidence that this is in in line with the vision we have and will allow us to execute it, I’ve had their blessing."
Here's Breslow again, with a fairly tortuous quote, but still plenty clear.
"Whatever the payroll is, is a byproduct of what the most productive path is in terms of executing on a strategy and a vision and not the other way around. That has been true. I’m focused on making the most productive decisions I can for the organization with respect to wins in 2024 and most importantly, 2024 and beyond.”
Breslow again, pretty definitively:
I would hate to think that in some way, there’s a perception that the last two months are indicative or predictive of how we intend to operate going forward. Certainly, there’s going to be a time where it makes sense to add external players from via free agency or trade that are impact players and we’re going to pay a premium for them. That’s how World Series contenders are born and that is very much the plan here.
Werner and Kennedy saying that while some moves (Sale, Verdugo, Urias) have reduced payroll, the team is not reducing payroll for the sake of reducing payroll. We also have them saying that they plan to sign premium, long-term contracts. They did not say all or which ones, which also seems normal.
It seems like for a lot of people, this is true because it feels true —
we're frustrated enough, aren't we? — but the evidence isn't there. It certainly feels like a scandal to hear the FO say the words “full throttle” and then not sign Yamamoto; to say "full throttle" and then see the calendar pass to January 20th with no dramatic additions. The team has finished in last place the last two years, so it feels as though there should be some evidence of corruption, of betrayal, of conspiracy. But you have to blot out a ton of context, much of it in the form of direct quotes, to arrive there.
