McAdam: “Full Throttle” may mean business as usual

[Rovin Romine]

It was Price and Sale on top of Hanley/Sandoval/Rusney on top of Crawford/Lackey/Beckett that made Henry say enough.
Devers was the exception after the loss of Bogaerts.

I'm mostly in agreement, but we should note they extended Boegarts in 2020 at 6 years $120M, which was good money at the time.
Then Story in '22 for $140.

For the recent short-term deals, it's been my impression that they're willing to overpay to keep them short.

They're not idiots - they've won four world series with very different teams. Some had more aging big contract players than others, some had more home-grown controlled talent than others. But all of them featured key FA or trade acquisitions to put them over the top. They'll spend when it makes sense to do so.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Thank you. I am training myself to not react too strongly to opinions I disagree with for this reason (this thread was more of a process thing but we can let it go) and hope to contribute less to the negative tone of discourse this year. I was probably guilty of it too much in the past. I too appreciate your input generally and I think we have agreed plenty in recent weeks.

I have run a less contentious sports blog for years and just chalk it up to the written word just not being an adequate substitution for in-person contact. If we were all at a bar lobbing our views back and forth, I don't think things would feel very contentious at all.

True, which is why I think it’s hard to ascertain intent from the written word sometimes. Ultimately, we all want the same thing - for the Red Sox to be good again. I don’t think this ownership group is “cheap”. I do think they have a way of operating that won’t really please some types of fans. I was openly annoyed by Mookie leaving. If they didn’t sign Devers, that might have been it for me. Thankfully, they did. I like the early returns on Breslow and think we’re heading in the right direction but I don’t see playoffs happening this year, which would just increase the noise that much more.

I would be shocked if they don’t land someone meaningful in FA before ST this year. They almost certainly will. They may make an intriguing trade as well. My take is that the plan is to use 2024 as the dreaded bridge year and hope that Mayer, Teel, and Anthony are all knocking on the door in 2025. If you gave me the option of signing Montgomery this year or waiting and getting Burnes for a comparable price next offseason, I’m fine waiting. But I don’t really blame any fan who is getting impatient. We’re not really used to being this bad for so long under this ownership group, which is a feather in their cap, truthfully. But, as we all know, this is a “what have you done for me lately” business.

 

[mauidano]

"Full throttle" continues as the Sox add Max Castillo from the Royals, a RHP. He takes up the last roster spot on the 40-Man with Lucas Giolito waiting to be added so someone has to go!
https://nesn.com/2024/01/red-sox-add-pitching-depth-claim-versatile-arm-off-waivers/

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Why do you hate the 2013 team so much?

I don't think you are seeking a serious response but here goes..

Those of us in the thread who are questioning ownership are seeing the cost of talent continue to shift up and to the right (it kind of does that over time). Furthermore, we are seeing people who made their wealth exploiting market inefficiencies and unearthing value driving this price action so its not like its just dumb money or profligate spending behind the dynamic. You can't just wait them out and let the market clear.

Meanwhile, the Sox have opted for the internal development route which is defensible but also credibly (for some) gives them air cover not to take big payroll risks.

I don't know whom is right about what FSG's true motives are but the pro-crowd really seems a bit too certain that they the Sox *will* spend when they get the right player at the right time. Thing is, its not clear that there ever will be a *right* time or that their *right* player exists or that FSG is truly prepared or capable of taking on the risk of one of these large contracts. What sort of player profiles as a Red Sox signing? It feels like they have to be established but still young, have skills that project to age well *and* are marketable to the fanbase. But then the big market teams will get involved too...

So they will have to pay up or they won't get the player.

 

[chrisfont9]

True, which is why I think it’s hard to ascertain intent from the written word sometimes. Ultimately, we all want the same thing - for the Red Sox to be good again. I don’t think this ownership group is “cheap”. I do think they have a way of operating that won’t really please some types of fans. I was openly annoyed by Mookie leaving. If they didn’t sign Devers, that might have been it for me. Thankfully, they did. I like the early returns on Breslow and think we’re heading in the right direction but I don’t see playoffs happening this year, which would just increase the noise that much more.

I would be shocked if they don’t land someone meaningful in FA before ST this year. They almost certainly will. They may make an intriguing trade as well. My take is that the plan is to use 2024 as the dreaded bridge year and hope that Mayer, Teel, and Anthony are all knocking on the door in 2025. If you gave me the option of signing Montgomery this year or waiting and getting Burnes for a comparable price next offseason, I’m fine waiting. But I don’t really blame any fan who is getting impatient. We’re not really used to being this bad for so long under this ownership group, which is a feather in their cap, truthfully. But, as we all know, this is a “what have you done for me lately” business.

Concur. IMO the divide here is between people who still see a plan, albeit a tougher one to pull off, versus those who detect a permanent pivot away from the glory years. The latter may be right -- times change, people change, certainly the economics have evolved a lot. But it just seems more plausible to me that they are still the same people as before, and the big difference is that the talent bottomed out like it never had in the last two decades. In all those years there was a veteran foundation -- Tek, Papi, Pedroia, Youk etc., augmented by guys like Lowell and so forth (too many to name) along the way. The farm system kept producing key players, even pitchers, so that plugging holes wasn't all that hard. Only after 2018 did they finally hit the point where they were springing too many leaks and had nobody coming along to plug the holes. That's why the last few years have looked totally different than the previous 20. They got too deep in the talent deficit to just reload again.
And there, I think plenty of people understand that but then we get into how to fix it, quicker through spending or slower through development, and while I can understand the perspective of not caring about Henry's money -- I certainly don't -- I tend to prefer the latter because the big-spending route has such a terrible track record.

 

[NickEsasky]

So I have one question. Why does it seem like a fait acompli around here that all our prospects are going to work out and then it's blast off for consistent cheap playoff performances and WS titles? Prospects fail at a remarkable rate (We like Fangraphs here yes? https://blogs.fangraphs.com/managing-prospect-expectations/), yet many hare are putting a lot of stock in those guys coming up and succeeding, and succeeding quickly. What if they all fail or at best generate some bench pieces or below-average WAR? Do we then pivot to big market free agents or does the window just get longer? Would we feel comfortable thinking that at some point ownership would realize they need to infuse talent another way if the farm doesn't pan out? I think we all agree you need talent to win. Better if it comes cheaply from your system, but you can't win without it.

 

[BringBackMo]

Two questions before a response:
1) Are you referring to Werner's comments where they are announcing that they are going to compete?
2) Do you really think the internal expectation of ownership was that they werent going to compete in 2022 and 2023? Ownership's behavior strongly indicates otherwise (e.g., Bloom being fired, a number of short term deals being signed, not being under the tax in 2022, spending 200M+ on a team generally). Otherwise I'm not sure I understand what's different now. They have been planning on competing since the beginning of 2021.

I think ownership has changed to some degree, but also the market has changed substantially (I think this is part of OCD's point)and they havent adjusted or arent willing to adjust to the new normal on player valuations and contract structures. They've been pretty consistent over their entire ownership that they do not like to hand out long term big money deals. Henry spoke long ago about not liking long deals that take players late into expected decline (and hell they waived Manny early on in their ownership to try to get out from the prior ownership's one large commitment). Unfortunately the free agent landscape is completely different than it was five plus years ago and certainly way different than what it was when they signed Price in late 2015. How many years does a 30 year old Price get in today's market? 9?

The four to seven year deals that they used to give out dont get them into the conversation with top talent so they'd rather chart a different course, which results in a meaningfully different strategy and comparative spend to any other big market spend who are much more willing to engage on long term big money deals. If people dont like recent history, the Sox in Henry's ownership have only handed out two deals for longer than 7 years (Pedroia, Devers); with one of those deals being incredibly team friendly at the time of signing (Pedroia). They have never gone longer than seven on a free agent (and only have three 7 year deals, including Gonzalez who was on the roster already). This is just a different approach then the other big market teams and ultimately will mean that they will spend less as its hard to push $250M+ (assuming Henry would even want to, I personally have my doubts he does) when you arent stacking long term big money deals together.

They've typically had one of these long term deals on the books at a time (Manny --> Pedroia --> Devers). For a long time, this wasnt really an issue because the number of deals in the market that were going more than say eight years was the absolute fringe of the market (for example David Price was an elite signing at the time and was only 7 years). I look at that history and see an ownership group that is happy to spend money on four to six year deals and potentially seven on the right player, but very uncomfortable with anything exceeding that. I think this is also an issue for pre-arb players as the deals that for example the Braves are handing out are often 7-10 year structures. When the Red Sox were signing similar deals back in the Theo era (Lester, Buchholz, 1st Pedroia deal) it was always in the 4-6 year range excluding club options (i.e., only the guaranteed years).

Perhaps the Devers deal is a sign they are willing to consider other longer term deals, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they dont get comfortable with those terms, they are really going to have to make hay on player development and the fickle mid market (which historically has had worse outcomes and lower EV) or they will continue to be all over place in whether they contend or not. Basically operate like a perhaps above average mid market team.

Listen, we have been round and round on this so many times. I understand that you are seriously doubtful that the Red Sox will sign players to long term deals anymore. I understand that you believe they will operate like an above-average mid-market team.

And you most certainly understand that I disagree with those sentiments. You know that I believe that the Red Sox see themselves as being in a contention window this season in a way that they did not going back to 2020, and will therefore do what they have always done when in a contention window, which is to say sign good free agents and/or trade for good players and extend them.

To your question number 1: I am basing my assumption that they will compete this year on the fact that they fired Chaim Bloom, as well as on Werner's comments, as well as on comments from Kennedy and Breslow that financial limitations will not be an issue, as well as on the series of moves they have so far made this off-season that seem to suggest bigger moves are still to come.

To your question number 2: I have said many many times in thread after thread that from 2020 on, which is to say coinciding with Bloom's hire, the Red Sox employed a stealth or hybrid rebuild that involved fielding high-variance rosters at the major league level. When things went right, as in 2021, those teams could compete. When things went wrong, as in 2022 and 2023, those teams could be bad. I do not believe that the expectations of ownership were that the Sox "weren't going to compete" in 2022 and 2023. I believe that their expectations were that, as with 2021, the team had some percentage chance of competing, while also having some percentage chance of crashing and burning. In other words, high variance. I also believe that ownership expected the minor league system to continue to improve in those seasons. In other words, hybrid compete/rebuild. Lastly, I believe that a second consecutive last-place finish blew up in ownership's face, and that Bloom was fired as a sacrificial lamb to the fan base.

You disagree with these things. I know that. I accept it. I have said to you and to many others that now that the Sox have decided to emerge from the rebuild they are committing to fielding a competitive club in 2024. And I have said that if we get to opening day and they do not have a roster that is built to compete for a playoff spot, then I will reevaluate my opinions. I just find it absurd that some here are loading up every thread with comments about how cheap the Sox are and how there's no plan. Yamamoto signing with the Dodgers does not mean that the Sox don't care about winning anymore. Let's see how things are looking on opening day.

 

[soxin6]

I don't think you are seeking a serious response but here goes..

Those of us in the thread who are questioning ownership are seeing the cost of talent continue to shift up and to the right (it kind of does that over time). Furthermore, we are seeing people who made their wealth exploiting market inefficiencies and unearthing value driving this price action so its not like its just dumb money or profligate spending behind the dynamic. You can't just wait them out and let the market clear.

Meanwhile, the Sox have opted for the internal development route which is defensible but also credibly (for some) gives them air cover not to take big payroll risks.

I don't know whom is right about what FSG's true motives are but the pro-crowd really seems a bit too certain that they the Sox *will* spend when they get the right player at the right time. Thing is, its not clear that there ever will be a *right* time or that their *right* player exists or that FSG is truly prepared or capable of taking on the risk of one of these large contracts. What sort of player profiles as a Red Sox signing? It feels like they have to be established but still young, have skills that project to age well *and* are marketable to the fanbase. But then the big market teams will get involved too...

So they will have to pay up or they won't get the player.

I think the bolded summarizes the feelings of many in Red Sox fandom. Improving the farm system and having young, cost controlled players is vital, but will FSG ever view the players at the top of the FA market as the right player? Story got good money, but it was under his predicted market because it was believed he would need surgery, which he had, to play shot again. It seems like FSG gave Dombrowski the authorization to do whatever it took to win the WS, but that flexibility put the team in a place that ownership was not comfortable with and now they have not given that kind of spending ability to the Bloom or Breslow (this one is still to be determined).

 

[sezwho]

Thank you. I am training myself to not react too strongly to opinions I disagree with for this reason (this thread was more of a process thing but we can let it go) and hope to contribute less to the negative tone of discourse this year. I was probably guilty of it too much in the past. I too appreciate your input generally and I think we have agreed plenty in recent weeks.

I have run a less contentious sports blog for years and just chalk it up to the written word just not being an adequate substitution for in-person contact. If we were all at a bar lobbing our views back and forth, I don't think things would feel very contentious at all.

Not like I'm some shining example, but fwiw I think you keep it pretty clean and this is getting trickier around here. I suspect its driven by the fact that the two potential financial futures (this is new normal vs. be patient its coming) seem more divergent: they could trade for a quality SP and be competitive, or not. They could hoard pennies and buy and hold prospects for two more years, or not.

Each is ever more dug in on convincing the other of the inevitable truth, and no amount of table pounding convinces. I don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or if the Red Sox are due a dead cat bounce, but am curious at the confidence of both positions.

 

[Max Power]

I don't know whom is right about what FSG's true motives are but the pro-crowd really seems a bit too certain that they the Sox *will* spend when they get the right player at the right time. Thing is, its not clear that there ever will be a *right* time or that their *right* player exists or that FSG is truly prepared or capable of taking on the risk of one of these large contracts. What sort of player profiles as a Red Sox signing?

They just gave Raffy Devers over $300 million. They were in on Yamamoto, whether you choose to believe that or not. It's clear they're willing to give out long term contracts to guys in their mid-20s.

It feels like they have to be established but still young, have skills that project to age well *and* are marketable to the fanbase. But then the big market teams will get involved too...

So they will have to pay up or they won't get the player.

If the Dodgers and Yankees are also interested in the player, you're right, the Red Sox are not going to get them. And they never have. The only way the Red Sox end up with the best players is by internal development or trade. Since the onset of free agency 50 years ago, all the best players came up with the team or were acquired via trade (or were Big Papi). So if your measuring stick for the team's commitment to winning is whether they end up with the top free agent target in a particular offseason, you're never going to believe they're committed to winning.

 

[chrisfont9]

So I have one question. Why does it seem like a fait acompli around here that all our prospects are going to work out and then it's blast off for consistent cheap playoff performances and WS titles? Prospects fail at a remarkable rate (We like Fangraphs here yes? https://blogs.fangraphs.com/managing-prospect-expectations/), yet many hare are putting a lot of stock in those guys coming up and succeeding, and succeeding quickly. What if they all fail or at best generate some bench pieces or below-average WAR? Do we then pivot to big market free agents or does the window just get longer? Would we feel comfortable thinking that at some point ownership would realize they need to infuse talent another way if the farm doesn't pan out? I think we all agree you need talent to win. Better if it comes cheaply from your system, but you can't win without it.

I can only speak for myself but I would say that Mayer, Teel and Anthony seem like they have a different vibe to them. Mayer is that #1-pick-level natural talent, Teel a Pedey-style gamer with an advanced track record, and Anthony just a meteoric riser who was a high pedigree guy to begin with. You're right to caution that this doesn't ticket them to stardom, but they come with qualities that make them better bets to succeed than anyone since the 2015 class.

 

[BigSoxFan]

So I have one question. Why does it seem like a fait acompli around here that all our prospects are going to work out and then it's blast off for consistent cheap playoff performances and WS titles? Prospects fail at a remarkable rate (We like Fangraphs here yes? https://blogs.fangraphs.com/managing-prospect-expectations/), yet many hare are putting a lot of stock in those guys coming up and succeeding, and succeeding quickly. What if they all fail or at best generate some bench pieces or below-average WAR? Do we then pivot to big market free agents or does the window just get longer? Would we feel comfortable thinking that at some point ownership would realize they need to infuse talent another way if the farm doesn't pan out? I think we all agree you need talent to win. Better if it comes cheaply from your system, but you can't win without it.

I think these are valid questions although I don’t think we all assume they’re all going to work out. I think most here would acknowledge the general failure rate of prospects.

Right now, the simple reality is that this franchise has a ton riding on the development of Mayer, Teel, and Anthony. All 3 have MLB all star potential. All 3 could flame out quickly. We just don’t know. Maybe someone else who’s not in that group emerges to offset any potential failure with the top 3. That happens too.

It’s a bit of a cop out answer but this situation could go in a number of directions and if they aren’t going to supplement it in FA in a big way, the reality is that they had better nail the development side. But that clearly isn’t easy to do.

One thing that gives me comfort is that the development of Bello and Casas and retention of Devers at least gives us a much better foundation than we had a year ago. But we really need the most recent FAs, Yoshida and Story, to deliver in a big way.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

So I have one question. Why does it seem like a fait acompli around here that all our prospects are going to work out and then it's blast off for consistent cheap playoff performances and WS titles? Prospects fail at a remarkable rate (We like Fangraphs here yes? https://blogs.fangraphs.com/managing-prospect-expectations/), yet many hare are putting a lot of stock in those guys coming up and succeeding, and succeeding quickly. What if they all fail or at best generate some bench pieces or below-average WAR? Do we then pivot to big market free agents or does the window just get longer? Would we feel comfortable thinking that at some point ownership would realize they need to infuse talent another way if the farm doesn't pan out? I think we all agree you need talent to win. Better if it comes cheaply from your system, but you can't win without it.

I don't think it's a fait accompli by any means that every prospect works out (and I don't think anyone else believes they will either), but wouldn't it be counter-productive to assume the prospects will fail and to spend proactively at the top of the market in the meantime? If a prospect fails, why does the pivot have to be to big market free agents? Why can't it be a mid-market guy on a short contract for a couple years who might give you a career year? Why can't it be a trade for someone else's prospect who happens to be blocked where he is (like Vaughn Grissom)? Why can't it be giving a shot to a young in-house player who might be about to turn a corner?

Talent comes in all forms at all kinds of prices. You don't need to shop at the top of the market to adequately address every hole in the lineup. The good GMs and the good teams are typically a blend of every type of acquisition (cheap young prospects, scrap-heap reclamations, mid-market journeyman types, and top of the market superstars).

 

[OCD SS]

No, you argued they're Tamper Bay Noath. Literally.

No what I literally said was "'Tampa Bay North' is a lot less sexy, but it seems like that description, pegged to revenues so there's a nice ROI, is a better bet of what we can hope for." in comparison to being "Dodgers East," which is what a lot of us had been hoping for. An exact payroll line was never stated, and I'm sorry I didn't spell out that of course it would be because the Sox have not been that low in how long? so I find that a really disingenuous argument.

Sure maybe they'll spend a bunch someday, when they're really good and ready. Just as long as that particular FA isn't good enough that 1 or 2 other teams might want him as well. Then we couldn't compete.

Why do you hate the 2013 team so much?

The 2013 team isn't that much different than the 2021 - 23 teams, they just got lucky on some players having career years and health breaking the right way... But if you're going to argue that represents a way to approach roster construction for the 3rd most valuable team in the league, where we put together kind of a good team and then hope everything breaks right, go for it (I mean it definitely sounds closer to a Tampa Bay roster than a Dodgers roster, but clearly I don't know anything).

 

[TomRicardo]

I can only speak for myself but I would say that Mayer, Teel and Anthony seem like they have a different vibe to them. Mayer is that #1-pick-level natural talent, Teel a Pedey-style gamer with an advanced track record, and Anthony just a meteoric riser who was a high pedigree guy to begin with. You're right to caution that this doesn't ticket them to stardom, but they come with qualities that make them better bets to succeed than anyone since the 2015 class.

Does Teel have a brother with the same kind of vibes as Pedroia?

Edit - I don't think you could pick two players more different than Pedroia and Teel. Teel is left handed catcher with 6 inches and like 50 lbs on Pedroia.

 

[NickEsasky]

I don't think it's a fait accompli by any means that every prospect works out (and I don't think anyone else believes they will either), but wouldn't it be counter-productive to assume the prospects will fail and to spend proactively at the top of the market in the meantime? If a prospect fails, why does the pivot have to be to big market free agents? Why can't it be a mid-market guy on a short contract for a couple years who might give you a career year? Why can't it be a trade for someone else's prospect who happens to be blocked where he is (like Vaughn Grissom)? Why can't it be giving a shot to a young in-house player who might be about to turn a corner?

Talent comes in all forms at all kinds of prices. You don't need to shop at the top of the market to adequately address every hole in the lineup. The good GMs and the good teams are typically a blend of every type of acquisition (cheap young prospects, scrap-heap reclamations, mid-market journeyman types, and top of the market superstars).

I wasn't asking the question to shame or call anyone out, but I read everything here and there definitely is a sentiment by many just to pencil in Mayer, Teel, and Anthony for 2025 and we'll be ready to roll here. Maybe it's just a shorthand way to say "youth is coming" and that's fine with me. But it's a lot to hope on that's all.

And I agree there are lots of different ways to build a winner, but you need to have some premium talent. Maybe Casas, Devers, and Bello get us there. Or Anthony hits, and Mayer and Teel at least give you cheap serviceable play.

I do just worry that as of right now there are a lot of eggs in the prospect basket that's all.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The 2013 team isn't that much different than the 2021 - 23 teams, they just got lucky on some players having career years and health breaking the right way... But if you're going to argue that represents a way to approach roster construction for the 3rd most valuable team in the league, where we put together kind of a good team and then hope everything breaks right, go for it (I mean it definitely sounds closer to a Tampa Bay roster than a Dodgers roster, but clearly I don't know anything).

It's roster construction for a rebuild that doesn't involve a full teardown Astros/Orioles style. It's high variance, as we see it involved a title, an ALCS berth and four last place finishes between the two periods. 2013-2015 led to the 2016-2019 run. I think the idea is that 2021-2023 will lead to a similar window of success with a blend of young prospects emerging and quality moves in both the free agency and trade markets. Hopefully without the prospect pipeline drying up and the roster costs skyrocketing so it can be sustained for a longer period.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

They just gave Raffy Devers over $300 million. They were in on Yamamoto, whether you choose to believe that or not. It's clear they're willing to give out long term contracts to guys in their mid-20s.

I have no information but I don't believe they were serious bidders for Yamamoto . As for Devers, I also don't believe this ownership group would have signed him if he were on the open market - I think they would have been priced out based on how they have operated the last four or five years.

That's just my .02, informed by the same things others here are seeing - and some of those people seem pretty bulled up on what FSG is serving Sox fans. If the Devers and Story signings tell you they will pay top dollar for production, I can't say that's a bad take. It just doesn't feel that way to me.

 

[chrisfont9]

Does Teel have a brother with the same kind of vibes as Pedroia?

Edit - I don't think you could pick two players more different than Pedroia and Teel. Teel is left handed catcher with 6 inches and like 50 lbs on Pedroia.

I don't think I was describing their body type or position or anything else other than their general makeup. The excitement around Teel is his mix of success and his personality maybe having a bigger impact.

 

[Max Power]

I have no information but I don't believe they were serious bidders for Yamamoto . As for Devers, I also don't believe this ownership group would have signed him if he were on the open market - I think they would have been priced out based on how they have operated the last four or five years.

That's just my .02, informed by the same things others here are seeing - and some of those people seem pretty bulled up on what FSG is serving Sox fans. If the Devers and Story signings tell you they will pay top dollar for production, I can't say that's a bad take. It just doesn't feel that way to me.

They have been priced out of the very top talent on open market for the entire existence of the open market. This isn't something new.

 

[BigSoxFan]

They have been priced out of the very top talent on open market for the entire existence of the open market. This isn't something new.

What about Manny in 2000? Before this ownership group, I know, but he was a top 2-3 FA that year behind ARod and the Sox went out and got him for a hefty price that proved to be worth every penny.

 

[astrozombie]

I have no information but I don't believe they were serious bidders for Yamamoto . As for Devers, I also don't believe this ownership group would have signed him if he were on the open market - I think they would have been priced out based on how they have operated the last four or five years.

That's just my .02, informed by the same things others here are seeing - and some of those people seem pretty bulled up on what FSG is serving Sox fans. If the Devers and Story signings tell you they will pay top dollar for production, I can't say that's a bad take. It just doesn't feel that way to me.

I just want to say that we don't always see eye-to-eye, but I do agree with you here.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

What about Manny in 2000? Before this ownership group, I know, but he was a top 2-3 FA that year behind ARod and the Sox went out and got him for a hefty price that proved to be worth every penny.

It isn't that the Sox can't pay for top talent on the open market. It's that they're not likely going to get any top talent that's targeted by the teams with deeper pockets than they have (namely the Yankees and Dodgers). That FA market in 2000 is a great example. Their #1 target that winter was Mike Mussina. Yankees outbid them. The Yankees weren't in on Manny so the Sox financial might won out in that case (over Cleveland).

Another example...winter of 2008-9. The Sox wanted Teixeira and all they ended up being was leverage for him to get more money out of the Yankees. Jump ahead two years and the Sox have a free and Yankee-free run at their #1 target Carl Crawford and they get him (which was not worth any penny they paid).

 

[BigSoxFan]

It isn't that the Sox can't pay for top talent on the open market. It's that they're not likely going to get any top talent that's targeted by the teams with deeper pockets than they have (namely the Yankees and Dodgers). That FA market in 2000 is a great example. Their #1 target that winter was Mike Mussina. Yankees outbid them. The Yankees weren't in on Manny so the Sox financial might won out in that case (over Cleveland).

Another example...winter of 2008-9. The Sox wanted Teixeira and all they ended up being was leverage for him to get more money out of the Yankees. Jump ahead two years and the Sox have a free and Yankee-free run at their #1 target Carl Crawford and they get him (which was not worth any penny they paid).

Is there proof that the Sox couldn’t financially meet these contract demands? Using Yamamoto as a recent example, the Sox easily could have hung in that race if he wanted Boston. He apparently never did. But I don’t think losing these guys is for lack of resources. They can’t win them all but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to outbid the Yankees, Dodgers, etc. occasionally.

 

[SoxinSeattle]

Does Teel have a brother with the same kind of vibes as Pedroia?

Edit - I don't think you could pick two players more different than Pedroia and Teel. Teel is left handed catcher with 6 inches and like 50 lbs on Pedroia.

This is weird and gross. He clearly meant Teel has similar grit to Pedroia. WTF does the brother have to do with anything?

 

[burstnbloom]

I have no information but I don't believe they were serious bidders for Yamamoto . As for Devers, I also don't believe this ownership group would have signed him if he were on the open market - I think they would have been priced out based on how they have operated the last four or five years.

That's just my .02, informed by the same things others here are seeing - and some of those people seem pretty bulled up on what FSG is serving Sox fans. If the Devers and Story signings tell you they will pay top dollar for production, I can't say that's a bad take. It just doesn't feel that way to me.

This feels very convenient. That contract was one of the richest contracts in baseball history when it was signed and it was for the prime years of an elite hitter. I get that it doesn't feel that way to you but it's very difficult to understand why it doesn't other than you want to be mad at them. Premium hitter, approaching free agency, and they give him a HUGE contract. You have to stretch to look at that and say "well if he was a free agent, they wouldn't have signed him."

 

[catomatic]

Has SOSH come to stand for Squabbling Ornery Seam-Heads?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Is there proof that the Sox couldn’t financially meet these contract demands? Using Yamamoto as a recent example, the Sox easily could have hung in that race if he wanted Boston. He apparently never did. But I don’t think losing these guys is for lack of resources. They can’t win them all but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to outbid the Yankees, Dodgers, etc. occasionally.

If he wanted Boston, I imagine that would have been communicated to them (as was reportedly the case with the Dodgers) and they might have hung in longer or done what it took.

I'd like to think it's reasonable that they could outbid the Yankees and Dodgers occasionally too, but history shows that hasn't been the case. At least for top talent that all three teams are intent on signing.

 

[sezwho]

Is there proof that the Sox couldn’t financially meet these contract demands? Using Yamamoto as a recent example, the Sox easily could have hung in that race if he wanted Boston. He apparently never did. But I don’t think losing these guys is for lack of resources. They can’t win them all but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to outbid the Yankees, Dodgers, etc. occasionally.

I think it will be a very rare situation where none in the big 3+ are super motivated on an elite player and the Red Sox are ‘in’ enough to outbid the field.

They have recently won in constrained markets like Devers, by aggressively moving on B+ prospects like Yoshida, or taking crazy injury risk like Story.

Giolito feels maybe different though, in that other teams with budget were in around that price. Maybe the pitching guru rep or maybe Sox dropped their pants on the terms, ie 1yr?

 

[BigSoxFan]

I think it will be a very rare situation where none in the big 3+ are super motivated on an elite player and the Red Sox are ‘in’ enough to outbid the field.

They have recently won in constrained markets like Devers, by aggressively moving on B+ prospects like Yoshida, or taking crazy injury risk like Story.

Giolito feels maybe different though, in that other teams with budget were in around that price. Maybe the pitching guru rep or maybe Sox dropped their pants on the terms, ie 1yr?

But isn’t that more an issue of team-building philosophy vs. financial capability? I agree that they’re not likely to outbid the Yankees or Dodgers often but I don’t see anything financially preventing them from doing so. Obviously, don’t have the benefit of seeing their financials but I would presume they’re healthy.

 

[joe dokes]

So I have one question. Why does it seem like a fait acompli around here that all our prospects are going to work out and then it's blast off for consistent cheap playoff performances and WS titles? Prospects fail at a remarkable rate (We like Fangraphs here yes? https://blogs.fangraphs.com/managing-prospect-expectations/), yet many hare are putting a lot of stock in those guys coming up and succeeding, and succeeding quickly. What if they all fail or at best generate some bench pieces or below-average WAR? Do we then pivot to big market free agents or does the window just get longer? Would we feel comfortable thinking that at some point ownership would realize they need to infuse talent another way if the farm doesn't pan out? I think we all agree you need talent to win. Better if it comes cheaply from your system, but you can't win without it.

Fair question. But it also helps to realize that those are just 3 of 100(?) players in the Sox minors, whose MLB arrival is projected to happen over a couple of separate seasons. That seems like a reasonable projection. (As opposed to pencilling in 50 other minor leaguers into MLB roles in 2026.) But, no doubt, they could all flame out. But in that sense, the Sox are no different than any other team that hopes to rely more-than-minimally on farm talent. And at the extreme, if the farm *never* pans out, the team is likely in trouble. I see no reason to bet on never, though.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

This feels very convenient. That contract was one of the richest contracts in baseball history when it was signed and it was for the prime years of an elite hitter. I get that it doesn't feel that way to you but it's very difficult to understand why it doesn't other than you want to be mad at them. Premium hitter, approaching free agency, and they give him a HUGE contract. You have to stretch to look at that and say "well if he was a free agent, they wouldn't have signed him."

And your assumption that they would win an open auction for Devers services feels equally convenient for your argument that they do pay up. The honest answer here is that we can never know.

Also, I like Devers, I don't mark player contracts to market and I think it was a fine extension. To be clear, I am not mad or upset at FSG at all. They are doing what's best for them - I am simply noting their strategy. If they aren't hell bent on doing whatever it takes to win another WS, I am not doing whatever it takes to pay attention.

 

[sezwho]

But isn’t that more an issue of team-building philosophy vs. financial capability? I agree that they’re not likely to outbid the Yankees or Dodgers often but I don’t see anything financially preventing them from doing so. Obviously, don’t have the benefit of seeing their financials but I would presume they’re healthy.

Sure, maybe I read just something different into your phrase ‘I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to outbid’.

In the abstract it seems reasonable for them to come out on top periodically given the underlying finances. In practice though, to your philosophy point, rare will be the day this FO blows the checkbook open wide enough to actually set the market on an elite FA.

As a recent example, I think they were genuinely in on YY, but ultimately not in the proper nosebleed section. He wasn’t coming, I’m not whinging (thanks SOSH), but as others have wondered, what conditions would conceivably arise such that they were?

Theres a new sheriff in town though, and I’m unreasonably confident Breslow took the job with full visibility into the constraints and belief in his plan to win within them.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I do just worry that as of right now there are a lot of eggs in the prospect basket that's all.

That's a good thing though, because as you pointed out some prospects will fail. It's great that we have multiple IF and OF players in the system some of whom might be able to contribute in the majors. If one or two stick, you'll know the holes you then have to trade for or sign FAs to fill.

It's even better that they're starting to roll in year by year. Compare to recent years where it's been (for example) nothing. Or Dalbec or Nothing.

 

[TomRicardo]

This is weird and gross. He clearly meant Teel has similar grit to Pedroia. WTF does the brother have to do with anything?

Grit? What do you mean by grit? Do you mean a similar framing skill to Christian Vasquez? Or is it a cannon like JBJ? Pedroia is not really a good at either of those things. Pedroia had incredible contact skills but Teel really doesn't match up.

I was guessing on the brother piece because I am really missing what vibes or grit for two very different players have in common.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Sure, maybe I read just something different into your phrase ‘I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to outbid’.

In the abstract it seems reasonable for them to come out on top periodically given the underlying finances. In practice though, to your philosophy point, rare will be the day this FO blows the checkbook open wide enough to actually set the market on an elite FA.

As a recent example, I think they were genuinely in on YY, but ultimately not in the proper nosebleed section. He wasn’t coming, I’m not whinging (thanks SOSH), but as others have wondered, what conditions would conceivably arise such that they were?

Theres a new sheriff in town though, and I’m unreasonably confident Breslow took the job with full visibility into the constraints and belief in his plan to win within them.

I think we’re pretty much in alignment. To DeJesus’ point, I think this ownership group has a philosophy that they adhere to. I don’t believe that we are financially incapable of setting the market on a top FA with the Yankees and/or Dodgers in the fold.

 

[8slim]

Oh hey! Don't know if you know this. Don't want to embarrass you if you don't. But just because a player is on the team at one point, they don't then play for that team for free forever. At some point, they can actually just leave via free agency.

So you might want to think about that before making your arguments.

I want to be transparent that I reported this post. It’s hot garbage and helps ruin the thread.

 

[burstnbloom]

And your assumption that they would win an open auction for Devers services feels equally convenient for your argument that they do pay up. The honest answer here is that we can never know.

Also, I like Devers, I don't mark player contracts to market and I think it was a fine extension. To be clear, I am not mad or upset at FSG at all. They are doing what's best for them - I am simply noting their strategy. If they aren't hell bent on doing whatever it takes to win another WS, I am not doing whatever it takes to pay attention.

I don't assume that. You can't say that ownership is cheap and then when they do spend, you qualify the spend with a hypothetical. The narrative post Mookie was that they wouldn't pay anyone. Then they did, and a certain part of the fan base just continued to say the same thing. Then when called out on the inconsistency they would say something like "if he were a free agent, they wouldnt have won the bidding." I don't understand the point of that thought exercise. They did what a "big market team" would do in that scenario. They paid their talented player a premium contract for a decade.

I don't mean this to sound as combative as it does so forgive me but I wonder if maybe you have already drawn a conclusion and even though we have a recent data point that they will pay someone a $300m contract, you're ignoring that in favor of your already established opinion.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I want to be transparent that I reported this post. It’s hot garbage and helps ruin the thread.

Shrug. I guess I could be nicer in pointing out he suggested two players who left through free agency would still be on the team.

 

[BringBackMo]

It's high variance, as we see it involved a title, an ALCS berth and four last place finishes between the two periods. 2013-2015 led to the 2016-2019 run. I think the idea is that 2021-2023 will lead to a similar window of success with a blend of young prospects emerging and quality moves in both the free agency and trade markets.

This is as well as I have seen it expressed. And the bolded is a really good point that doesn’t get discussed enough.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Two questions before a response:
1) Are you referring to Werner's comments where they are announcing that they are going to compete?
2) Do you really think the internal expectation of ownership was that they werent going to compete in 2022 and 2023? Ownership's behavior strongly indicates otherwise (e.g., Bloom being fired, a number of short term deals being signed, not being under the tax in 2022, spending 200M+ on a team generally). Otherwise I'm not sure I understand what's different now. They have been planning on competing since the beginning of 2021.

I think ownership has changed to some degree, but also the market has changed substantially (I think this is part of OCD's point)and they havent adjusted or arent willing to adjust to the new normal on player valuations and contract structures. They've been pretty consistent over their entire ownership that they do not like to hand out long term big money deals. Henry spoke long ago about not liking long deals that take players late into expected decline (and hell they waived Manny early on in their ownership to try to get out from the prior ownership's one large commitment). Unfortunately the free agent landscape is completely different than it was five plus years ago and certainly way different than what it was when they signed Price in late 2015. How many years does a 30 year old Price get in today's market? 9?

The four to seven year deals that they used to give out dont get them into the conversation with top talent so they'd rather chart a different course, which results in a meaningfully different strategy and comparative spend to any other big market spend who are much more willing to engage on long term big money deals. If people dont like recent history, the Sox in Henry's ownership have only handed out two deals for longer than 7 years (Pedroia, Devers); with one of those deals being incredibly team friendly at the time of signing (Pedroia). They have never gone longer than seven on a free agent (and only have three 7 year deals, including Gonzalez who was on the roster already). This is just a different approach then the other big market teams and ultimately will mean that they will spend less as its hard to push $250M+ (assuming Henry would even want to, I personally have my doubts he does) when you arent stacking long term big money deals together.

They've typically had one of these long term deals on the books at a time (Manny --> Pedroia --> Devers). For a long time, this wasnt really an issue because the number of deals in the market that were going more than say eight years was the absolute fringe of the market (for example David Price was an elite signing at the time and was only 7 years). I look at that history and see an ownership group that is happy to spend money on four to six year deals and potentially seven on the right player, but very uncomfortable with anything exceeding that. I think this is also an issue for pre-arb players as the deals that for example the Braves are handing out are often 7-10 year structures. When the Red Sox were signing similar deals back in the Theo era (Lester, Buchholz, 1st Pedroia deal) it was always in the 4-6 year range excluding club options (i.e., only the guaranteed years).

Perhaps the Devers deal is a sign they are willing to consider other longer term deals, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they dont get comfortable with those terms, they are really going to have to make hay on player development and the fickle mid market (which historically has had worse outcomes and lower EV) or they will continue to be all over place in whether they contend or not. Basically operate like a perhaps above average mid market team.

This is an excellent post. Perfectly explains the ownership’s shift in long-term deals and failures to adjust to how business is done in FA these days.

 

[grepal]

Does Teel have a brother with the same kind of vibes as Pedroia?

Edit - I don't think you could pick two players more different than Pedroia and Teel. Teel is left handed catcher with 6 inches and like 50 lbs on Pedroia.

I do believe he was discussing grit and temperament.

 

[BringBackMo]

Is there proof that the Sox couldn’t financially meet these contract demands? Using Yamamoto as a recent example, the Sox easily could have hung in that race if he wanted Boston. He apparently never did. But I don’t think losing these guys is for lack of resources. They can’t win them all but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to outbid the Yankees, Dodgers, etc. occasionally.

It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that in the half century or whatever of free agency, the Sox have never gone toe to toe with the Yankees for a free agent and won. You asked about Manny and it was pointed out that they got Manny only because the Yankees decided they didn’t want him and went for Mussina instead. Can you point to any examples of the Sox competing with the Yankees over the decades and getting the player? If you can’t, is it your belief that it’s because for half a century the Sox simply haven’t been doing it right? To that end, why didn’t the Mets sign Yamamoto? They were in it all the way, right to the end, made the highest offer. LA didn’t beat it they matched it. What should the Mets have done differently to win?

 

[BaseballJones]

The Red Sox have often been among the biggest spenders in MLB. They are not, and will not be, a "small market" team. It is also true that they really don't ever outspend the Yankees or, now, the Dodgers (and even Mets) for a free agent that those other teams are hell bent on signing. But at the same time, in the last century they've won more championships than anyone else in baseball, so what this organization does is:

1. Spend a lot of money. Maybe not the most amount of money, but a lot.
2. Perform pretty well on the whole, but has had (and will have) down periods. They cannot always be good, unlike the teams who have bigger payrolls than they do.
3. If it all comes together, they can win it all.

That's not a terrible model and not a terrible outcome. We just have to roll a little with the down periods. They'll come out of this one and be good for a while.

 

[8slim]

Shrug. I guess I could be nicer in pointing out he suggested two players who left through free agency would still be on the team.

You could be nicer everywhere you post here.

 

[Rovin Romine]

You could be nicer everywhere you post here.

Oh. . .was it not about the post then?

 

[8slim]

Oh. . .was it not about the post then?

Your reading of his post was also bad. It was a lose-lose

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't assume that. You can't say that ownership is cheap and then when they do spend, you qualify the spend with a hypothetical. The narrative post Mookie was that they wouldn't pay anyone. Then they did, and a certain part of the fan base just continued to say the same thing. Then when called out on the inconsistency they would say something like "if he were a free agent, they wouldnt have won the bidding." I don't understand the point of that thought exercise. They did what a "big market team" would do in that scenario. They paid their talented player a premium contract for a decade.

I don't mean this to sound as combative as it does so forgive me but I wonder if maybe you have already drawn a conclusion and even though we have a recent data point that they will pay someone a $300m contract, you're ignoring that in favor of your already established opinion.

We can agree to disagree about Devers extension which prevented him from hitting the open market - your view appears to be that the extension was equivalent to what Devers would receive if he were a legit FA. If that is the case, I completely disagree. He didn't hit the market so its hard to call his contract one that is at market (btw, we don't need to debate this piece with models and comparison deals - those aren't his market) because there was no competition for his services.

Maybe you are right and we are being too hard on ownership. I don't think so - I think they know exactly what they are doing and are happy to rely on the legions of fans who either think they are poised to leap into contention someday soon or the rest who are more casual about winning.

 

[simplicio]

This is an excellent post. Perfectly explains the ownership’s shift in long-term deals and failures to adjust to how business is done in FA these days.

I don't think there's any evidence on offer that ownership has failed to adjust to how business is done in FA "these days," which presumably means within the last five years when the size of the top deals has exploded. They've been in a rebuild that's coincided with that period and it hasn't made any amount of sense to throw $300 million+ at someone who'd be in their 30s before they had a proper team around them. Devers didn't get that kind of money cause Henry got booed by some fans, he got that money because he'll be 27 next season and not 31.

 

[TomRicardo]

I do believe he was discussing grit and temperament.

Their temperament is nothing alike. Kyle Teel is the most polite athlete that came out of Jersey. Pedroia had a permachip on his shoulder. Golly geez vs. the laser show.