Our ownership group

DarthAvershen

lurker
Feb 3, 2020
32
Massachusetts
Mods- I looked at thread titles back to the 11/2018 and did a site search. Please delete this if there is a more applicable thread this goes under. Sorry in advance.


For a group with unprecedented success, I feel this ownership doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt like other sports teams in town. I’d like to hear why people think so.

Personally I think they need a PR person. They always come off like they are trying to pull a fast one or trying to sell something!
 

daltonsoxfan

lurker
Jul 31, 2006
5
I think you're correct about the underwhelming support this group gets in general. I think some of it, at least for me, harkens back to Luchino (sp?) being involved. The whole Francona, Valentine, Epstein business had Larry's fingerprints all over it. Since he has been out of the picture things have been a little more straight forward. We don't always get the result we like as fans but aside for some horrendous free agent signings the overall front office record is at least understandable.
 

DarthAvershen

lurker
Feb 3, 2020
32
Massachusetts
I also think a part of it is the lack of a consistent strong personnel person.. when we look at the other 3 other teams there has been tremendous consistent personnel leadership:

Bruins- Neely
Celtics- Ainge
Patriots- the Hoodie

The Sox have had so much turnover (I understand that the ownership should be held responsible for this). I wonder if they would be perceived differently today if it was 15+ years of Theo either same success (minus his gorilla suit escape time)!
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,590
This has been discussed a lot in various threads, and I've thought about it a lot because (1) I don't particularly care for this ownership group and (2) that seems outrageous given the success they've brought to the Sox.

Why do I agree with "In Bill We Trust" even after he's arguably tanked a couple of seasons by not giving Brady enough quality receivers, his drafts have been spotty, and he's almost constantly being accused of some kind of rule-bending, yet am hesitant to give the Sox ownership group any slack?

I think my issue is that since Theo left, they've never seemed to have a real plan -- they just run full speed in whatever direction their current GM thinks is best. While it's hard to argue with the results of this approach to date, it tends to give a fan whiplash. During the stretch of seasons from 2003-2011, the Sox had 2 years with under 90 wins (86 and 89) and 7 over. Since Theo left, they've had 4 years under 90 wins and 4 over (but the same number of WS wins as during Theo's regime).

I also think I'm distrustful because when they've done dumb things, they were really dumb: hiring Bobby V, lowballing Lester, arguing that 2010 wasn't a "bridge year," the unnecessary Sale extension, the way Francona's departure was handled, all of the drama around Theo and LL, etc.
 

Cokes311

lurker
Apr 10, 2008
84
Witch City
I also think a part of it is the lack of a consistent strong personnel person.. when we look at the other 3 other teams there has been tremendous consistent personnel leadership:

Bruins- Neely
Celtics- Ainge
Patriots- the Hoodie

The Sox have had so much turnover (I understand that the ownership should be held responsible for this). I wonder if they would be perceived differently today if it was 15+ years of Theo either same success (minus his gorilla suit escape time)!
This is part of it, to be sure. No consistent manager or GM or FO folks for even half of the last 20 years, really. (Theo was probably the closest, thanks to the glorious Cherington/Hoyer reign). Seven managers over 20 years when 3 of them have won World Series and none of them retired is bonkers. There's also some of the murkier stuff here that there isn't with the other orgs (the way things ended with Francona, the allegations of him overusing pain meds popping up in the Globe, comes to mind immediately).

The other thing is that MLB has the biggest financial disparity of any sport. We know as fans that John Henry has a boat that costs more than any of the bottom 5 payrolls in baseball. We know that the only penalty for going over the spending threshold is spending more money, which the Red Sox effectively print out for the owners. We expect them to spend the money because they can afford it, and because they have it to spend. With the other three teams, we know they can't do that. We brace ourselves for players we love leaving because the team can't afford to keep them once they hit FA. We never have to do that with the Red Sox, because if they want to keep someone badly enough, they can afford it.
 
Aug 11, 2019
387
For a group with unprecedented success, I feel this ownership doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt like other sports teams in town.
Unprecedented success? Certainly the Patriots have done better in recent years than the Red Sox. You go back about 12 years and the Celtics started a streak of five first-place finishes and farther back than that and they won eight straight championships and 11 out of 14.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,973
Only doing this because of the way these sentences are constructed...

We know as fans that John Henry has a boat that costs more than any of the bottom 5 payrolls in baseball.
Henry's net worth is $2.8B (the first number I saw when googling), Peter Angelos owns the Orioles who have the lowest current payroll and he has a net worth of $2B. Every professional sports team owner is rich, this is a non-point.

We know that the only penalty for going over the spending threshold is spending more money
No no no no no. If you genuinely still think this after all the discussion on this topic, I beg you to research it more before making any more statements about what 'we know'.
 

Cokes311

lurker
Apr 10, 2008
84
Witch City
It was hyperbole. I know you can get your draft pick dropped for going over by $40m now. The point was that the lack of a salary cap has primed baseball fans at large for miseries that other sports prepare us to expect.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,790
This has been discussed a lot in various threads, and I've thought about it a lot because (1) I don't particularly care for this ownership group and (2) that seems outrageous given the success they've brought to the Sox.

Why do I agree with "In Bill We Trust" even after he's arguably tanked a couple of seasons by not giving Brady enough quality receivers, his drafts have been spotty, and he's almost constantly being accused of some kind of rule-bending, yet am hesitant to give the Sox ownership group any slack?

I think my issue is that since Theo left, they've never seemed to have a real plan -- they just run full speed in whatever direction their current GM thinks is best. While it's hard to argue with the results of this approach to date, it tends to give a fan whiplash. During the stretch of seasons from 2003-2011, the Sox had 2 years with under 90 wins (86 and 89) and 7 over. Since Theo left, they've had 4 years under 90 wins and 4 over (but the same number of WS wins as during Theo's regime).

I also think I'm distrustful because when they've done dumb things, they were really dumb: hiring Bobby V, lowballing Lester, arguing that 2010 wasn't a "bridge year," the unnecessary Sale extension, the way Francona's departure was handled, all of the drama around Theo and LL, etc.
Of course I don't know any of those guys personally, so my "like" or "dislike" of the ownership group is purely based on what product they put out and the statements they make, etc. But I've seen them invest TONS of money in the roster and in the ballpark itself, enhancing the fan experience by a wide margin.


They've brought us unprecedented heights: winning the division 3 times in a row, which the Sox had never done. Winning a World Series. Winning FOUR of them. Putting together the best team in franchise history in 2018. Consistently trying to add big-time talent.

They've had big failures and misjudgments. But I don't know how, on the whole, a Red Sox fan could "dislike" this ownership group, when they've improved the fan experience considerably, and improved the on-field product to heights this franchise, frankly, has never seen before. I don't know what else we'd really expect out of ownership.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,424
Our ownership group is clumsy and in need to some top-rate PR help, but I am also very appreciative of everything they have done for us since 2002. I don't doubt that they have a sincere desire to bring a contending team to Red Sox fans every single year (with the obvious acknowledgement that, yes, they want to make as much money as possible by doing so).

As I've stated in other threads, younger fans have no idea how bad we had it in the late 1970's and early 1980's under Buddy LeRoux and Haywood Sullivan. The missteps by the Henry-Werner ownership group do not even begin to come close to the terrible management of that dark era.
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
1,678
I think it comes down to two factors, both mentioned in some form in earlier posts...

1. Volatility. Unlike the relatively stable regimes for the other Boston franchises, the Sox have been a bit all over the place in terms of approach/strategy, we’ve seen some high profile personnel mistakes, etc. Throw in a couple last place finishes, and it doesn’t feel like 15+ years of success the way it does for the Pats. Even when the Celtics did their mini-tank after the Brooklyn trade, there was a pretty clear strategy that was obvious even to casual fans as it’s pretty well understood how critical the draft is for star player acquisition for NBA teams not located in LA.

2.Baseball teams are technically unconstrained on salary - you can’t say “it’s just money” in the other sports, so it’s a lot harder to accuse ownership of just being cheap. Fans may not like Bill’s roster construction, but you can’t argue the Pats don’t spend to the cap. It will actually be interesting to see if Wyc and co are willing to go deep into the tax to keep the top 4 in place - if they aren’t, even if strategically reasonable, I expect a lot of fans will criticize them harshly for it.
 

Teachdad46

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Oct 14, 2011
127
Vermont
I dunno. It's like we're all teenagers sitting at the fully-laden dining room table in our parents' nice warm house eating their roast beef dinner and bitching about what a pain in the ass they are. While this may be true, there's a larger reality, isn't there?
 

Trautwein's Degree

a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
11,480
My Desk
Part of Red Sox fan DNA is to be miserable. Misery used to surround an 86 year drought. Now that the current ownership has delivered 4 World Series titles - this strand of DNA manifests itself in weird ways - most recently surrounding them making a very smart decision to trade a very good player.

The handwringing that I've seen here and from members of this board surrounding Mookie defies all logic. And that's okay - the word fan is derived from fanatic.

To quote Rick Pitino - the negativity in the town really sucks.

The ownership group has been great. I wish they would have torn down Fenway Park but reasonable minds can disagree on that.
 
Last edited:

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
1,935
Windham, ME
I think it's a combination of things. First the Patriots, having one of the most successful franchises ever in the most popular sport in the US essentially sharing your city has been a bit of a curse in that it makes the success of the Red Sox seem lackluster in comparison especially to the more casual fan. Second there is a generational issue here where younger fans who were born after 2000 don't have the same down periods to compare to that older fans do. If you have experience with any Sullivan ownership, Thanksdad Gaston, or Buddy Leroux or pre-Neely Delaware North you should be on your knees thanking god every day for John Henry and the Krafts. If you've never heard of those owners you don't have the same frame of reference.

I'll admit I love this ownership group. They have done everything I could have ever asked for and more. They won not one but multiple world series. They kept Fenway and made it nicer for fans. They have spent millions in the pursuit of further victories. They are a little awkward around the press...I can live with that.
 

Danny_Darwin

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,718
I’ll freely admit that I don’t follow the other teams as closely, so maybe I’m wrong about this, but I really think whatever concerns people have stem at least in part from something I’ve brought up a few times in the past - with the brief exception of the Dombrowski era, it feels like just about every decision this ownership group has made has played out publicly, and often in messy fashion. Sure, on the record, everyone gives non-answers, but everything leaks detail by detail. And yeah, there’s other parties involved, and yeah, I don’t follow other teams, so maybe this happens to them, too. But at the same time, it’s sort of been a constant. I am sure that many transactions made by every team involve the level of back and forth we’ve seen with various Sox moves and non-moves, but we seldom learn about it until after the fact.
 

hube

lurker
Apr 4, 2010
71
I don’t follow the Bruins so can’t comment there, but in large part the Cs/Pats owners get out of the way and let their sports people do the talking.

Despite the success since they took over, I don't think Sox ownership has garnered the same benefit of the doubt because of the way the Theo and Francona issues were handled, the way ownership markets the team, and the apparent interference w/r/t player acquisition (Sandoval, for example). They've also made some boneheaded and flat-out disastrous decisions over the years that the other two have been able to avoid, and as high as the highs have been, the down times for the Sox have been much worse than for the others.

Grousbeck and Kraft are no strangers to the media, but they handle themselves in a way that makes clear - or at least better creates the appearance that - they're hands-off with the day-to-day team operations.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,619
I don’t follow the Bruins so can’t comment there, but in large part the Cs/Pats owners get out of the way and let their sports people do the talking.

Despite the success since they took over, I don't think Sox ownership has garnered the same benefit of the doubt because of the way the Theo and Francona issues were handled, the way ownership markets the team, and the apparent interference w/r/t player acquisition (Sandoval, for example). They've also made some boneheaded and flat-out disastrous decisions over the years that the other two have been able to avoid, and as high as the highs have been, the down times for the Sox have been much worse than for the others.

Grousbeck and Kraft are no strangers to the media, but they handle themselves in a way that makes clear - or at least better creates the appearance that - they're hands-off with the day-to-day team operations.
The bolded is at odds with reality.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,619
That was intended only to reference the time period since this ownership group came in and in comparison to and concurrent with the other teams I discuss.
The 21st century Patriots are pretty much the gold standard for any sport. Comparisons to them are ludicrous.
What isn't ludicrous is to compare the RedSox to other teams that play MajorLeagueBaseball. The Red Sox have had only 4 or 5 truly shitty seasons since 2002. That probably ranks pretty high.
 
Last edited:

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,076
Philadelphia
I don't follow other sports very closely at all (relapsed NBA fan who knows very little about the current league; don't give a shit about football though obviously am aware of the Patriots success), but I think the whole "the Sox lows are worse than the other teams" over roughly the last two decades is certainly up for debate.

Since winning in '86, the Celtics have one championship. It was great, and they were clearly in the mix for the following two seasons, too. But most of their recent history has been that of being good, but not nearly good enough. Lots of playoff appearances, not much success getting over the hump.

The Sox, on the other hand, have had a handful of last-place finishes, certainly, wrapped around four championships. I'll take getting to the World Series and winning it than having lots of first-round exits (which they also have in recent years, to be fair).

If the cost of winning those championships is a few bad seasons, I'm OK with that trade-off.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
8,790
The 21st century Patriots are pretty much the gold standard for any sport. Comparisons to them are ludicrous.
What isn't ludicrous is to compare them to other teams that play MajorLeagueBaseball. The Red Sox have had only 4 or 5 truly shitty seasons since 2002. That probably ranks pretty high.
Not to mention that they have the most WS titles in MLB since they took ownership of the organization. Basically, they’ve come in and kicked ass.
 

donutogre

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,076
Philadelphia
More broadly, I think a lot of people here are making some great points about the perception of the ownership. Objectively speaking, it's hard to find much bad in the results: 10 playoff appearances in the 18 years these owners have been in charge, including four World Series wins. As Joe dokes notes, this puts us among the best the MLB has had to offer in that timeframe.

As some have mentioned, I think the perception of this ownership group being less steady than those results would indicate comes from the more volatile recent years. Worst-to-first-to-worst back to first and another win is a bit weird, and last year's surprisingly mediocre results don't help. Add in this truly bizarre offseason, complete with a cheating investigation, the loss of such a promising manager, the loss of the best home-grown talent we've had in decades, and few other positive changes of note has left us all feeling pretty unsettled.

Add in some of the more high-profile gaffes that have gone along with this decade's two World Series wins and it's definitely not the stable, consistent model we'd maybe like to see. I think the next two seasons are going to be crucial -- I believe in the ownership, still, given those past results. But, if this latest rebuild plan doesn't yield some results, if what we got for Mookie doesn't really pan out, I can see the pressure mounting. Sadly, I think we're still a few years away from getting back to true stability -- it's very hard to know what to expect this year, and our manager situation is obviously still up in the air. I'm going to be pleasantly surprised if the Sox stay in the race this year, but am otherwise not expecting much. To punt a season is a bummer, but if it gets us better set up for 2021 and the rest of the next decade, I'll deal.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
40,804
Rotten Apple
As I've stated in other threads, younger fans have no idea how bad we had it in the late 1970's and early 1980's under Buddy LeRoux and Haywood Sullivan. The missteps by the Henry-Werner ownership group do not even begin to come close to the terrible management of that dark era.
Amen to this!

As badly as they have botched the Betts fiasco (a rich team, run by financial wizards no less, selling low on their signature player is a major miscalculation imo) it is a mere blip on the screen of complete disasters that previous owners have foisted upon the fandom. Sure, this might be rank Whataboutism, but 80+ years of incompetence will do that to fans who remember key contracts not being sent out, taking a pass on Willie Mays or throwing tons of money at the wrong players. The Betts selloff, and the mistakes that led to it, is a legit black mark for this ownership group but they have so many success stories and trophies to show for it that it's hard to stay mad unless this truly becomes the norm going forward.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,279
Maine
as high as the highs have been, the down times for the Sox have been much worse than for the others.
Perhaps we need some context before we declare the Sox' down times worse than the others?

Since February 2002 when this ownership group took control (leaving out the current B's and C's seasons since they aren't concluded)...

Red Sox: 18 seasons, 4-0 in championship appearances, 4-2 in league/conference championship appearances, 10 total playoff appearances, 3 last place finishes
Patriots: 18 seasons, 5-3 in championship appearances, 8-4 in league/conference championship appearances, 16 total playoff appearances, 0 last place finishes
Celtics: 18 seasons, 1-1 in championship appearances, 2-4 in league/conference championship appearances, 15 total playoff appearances, 1 last place finish
Bruins: 17 seasons, 1-2 in championship appearances, 3-0 in league/conference championship appearances, 13 total playoff appearances, 2 last place finishes, 1 season lost to lockout

I'm going to go ahead and say the B's have hit lower lows in the last 18 years just on the virtue of having an entire season lost to labor strife. If we want to shorten to the last decade only, then maybe the fact that only the Red Sox have found last place in their division tips the scales in their favor as having the worst down times.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,389
The ownership group has been great. I wish they would have torn down Fenway Park but reasonable minds can disagree on that.
I agree with everything you've said, but would just like to add that when tearing down Fenway or building a new park was shot down as an option for them, they didn't let the park fall apart and use that as an excuse to try again in a few years. They rebuilt huge chunks of the stadium in place. They moved out offices and storage, putting things that didn't need to be there someplace else. They changed all the things they could to make the park as comfortable and easy to access as they could. The game experience is a lot better than it was when I was a kid in the 80's. Sure, a good chunk of that also increases how many tickets, or how much concessions and memorabilia they can sell and make money off of. But we also want to buy tickets, concessions and memorabilia. I think they did right by the fans in terms of the ballpark situation.

I think the main thing holding the ownership group from being loved is that there isn't a pleasant and charismatic face among them. They rank above Jeremy Jacobs in that, but only because he is a real life version of Monty Burns. Wyc Grousbeck is probably at the top locally. He can talk about his team and come off both as a fan of the sport and knowledgeable about what his front office is and should be doing. Bob Kraft isn't everybody's favorite person right now, and had some rough parts at the beginning of his ownership as well, but he's always come across as a fan of the team and as fully invested in them winning. We don't get that feeling from the Henry group, but I think that's because Henry doesn't seem to have actual emotions and could pass for an early gen robot. Definitely not passing the Turing test.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,287
The Short Bus
I have no problem with this ownership group. I think they have done well by the team in the time they have owned it, and while some of the screwups have been huge (Lester, Bobby V) the team has always bounced back.

As for the trade, I get why they had to do it. They need to get back to focusing on player development and building around cost controlled talent. Dombrowski used that a good chunk of that talent to acquire guys like Kimbrel and Sale, and that worked for 2018. But it is not sustainable, and the Sox needed a reset, and trading Mookie to get rid of half of Price's contract was the starting point. I dont think they did a great job explaining the trade, all they needed to do was quote a certain National League GM:

"Why are we fiscally responsible? Not because we are cheap; we are not. Not because we are afraid of large commitments; we are not. Not because we would rather pursue non-tenders or particularly enjoy reading through thousands of minor league free agent reports instead; we don't (well, maybe sometimes). Quite simply, we are fiscally responsible because the alternative would be a disaster. Fiscal irresponsibility is the single quickest way to hamstring a franchise for a decade."

Theo Epstein, in 2003.
It is even more applicable today. What I would really like to see from ownership is some stability in the organization, from the GM to the on field managerial staff. I was hopeful we'd get that with Cora and Bloom, but it doesn't look like its going to happen now. Get through this season, rehire Cora (or a young, analytics driven manager who is on the same page with Bloom and everyone else in the organization), focus on development while relying on a solid if not spectacular core at the ML level and set up the team for a consistent run of competitive baseball.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,768
from the wilds of western ma
It's perfectly fair to judge and criticize their moves and decisions on a micro-level. And for all the energy and resources they have put into marketing and PR throughout their tenure, they still kind of suck at it. But at a macro level, they've been everything you could reasonably hope for. The on-field success speaks for itself, but the improvement in the ballpark experience can't be overstated. Like others here, I started going to Fenway in the 70's as a kid, and it is night and day in every respect between then and now. Cleanliness, safety/security, amenities/concessions, restrooms, the neighborhood, all of it. By the mid/late 90's, I was completely in the build a new ballpark camp. Ownership had and executed a vision for the ballpark that I could have never imagined. I was happy to be dead wrong about not wanting to keep Fenway, and for that alone I appreciate them very much. And, they delivered 4 freaking WS titles. When many of us were convinced we wouldn't see one in our lifetime. @The Allented Mr Ripley is correct. There is a substantial percentage of the fan base who have adapted the worst characteristics of entitled Yankee fans. Suppose it was inevitable.
 

JM3

lurker
Dec 14, 2019
55
Perhaps we need some context before we declare the Sox' down times worse than the others?

Since February 2002 when this ownership group took control (leaving out the current B's and C's seasons since they aren't concluded)...

Red Sox: 18 seasons, 4-0 in championship appearances, 4-2 in league/conference championship appearances, 10 total playoff appearances, 3 last place finishes
Patriots: 18 seasons, 5-3 in championship appearances, 8-4 in league/conference championship appearances, 16 total playoff appearances, 0 last place finishes
Celtics: 18 seasons, 1-1 in championship appearances, 2-4 in league/conference championship appearances, 15 total playoff appearances, 1 last place finish
Bruins: 17 seasons, 1-2 in championship appearances, 3-0 in league/conference championship appearances, 13 total playoff appearances, 2 last place finishes, 1 season lost to lockout

I'm going to go ahead and say the B's have hit lower lows in the last 18 years just on the virtue of having an entire season lost to labor strife. If we want to shorten to the last decade only, then maybe the fact that only the Red Sox have found last place in their division tips the scales in their favor as having the worst down times.
It's been a great run all the way around. Would be fun to compare to the 18 seasons for each team prior -- & by fun I mean illustrative of how spoiled we've gotten.
 

pk1627

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2003
1,759
Cambridge
Boston is my home and I love it. However, it is a provincial place that inherently distrusts outsiders. JHenry trying to build empathy citing his love for Musial just won’t fly. And the fact that he’s right about the Betts trade is downright infuriating to this crowd.

Last year sucked, the Sox appear worse on paper and that’s what’s driving all this. I say play the games. Everyone is all smiles if they’re playing in Oct.
 
Dec 8, 2017
39
I dunno. It's like we're all teenagers sitting at the fully-laden dining room table in our parents' nice warm house eating their roast beef dinner and bitching about what a pain in the ass they are. While this may be true, there's a larger reality, isn't there?
As a father of three, I love this analogy. Although, to be fair, we do keep the thermostat kinda low in winter (put a sweater on!), and we don't have roast beef very often ever, so...
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
526
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Our ownership group is clumsy and in need to some top-rate PR help, but I am also very appreciative of everything they have done for us since 2002. I don't doubt that they have a sincere desire to bring a contending team to Red Sox fans every single year (with the obvious acknowledgement that, yes, they want to make as much money as possible by doing so).
This is where I'm at as well.

I have no problem with this ownership group, and feel they are regularly crushed as well as being roundly accused of being carpet baggers about to sell essentially every year, in spite of unparalleled Red Sox success.

Boiling it down, they are smart AF and spend a ton of money, which is all I can ask. Yes, Dombrowski turned into Dumbbrowski on their watch but I view their change in strategies as opportunism and adaptiveness. He did exactly what he was hired to to: when they had a hand to play they doubled down. Currently their plan is to collect assets and re-launch, presumably with an evolved 'model'. Crazy to me is doing the same thing across different environments and expecting the same outcome.

Henry is socially awkward (at least through the lens of mass media consumption) which doesn't help.
 
Aug 11, 2019
387
JHenry trying to build empathy citing his love for Musial just won’t fly.
And as owner of the Red Sox perhaps he should have known that after the 1946 season Ted Williams was offered a $3M/3-year contract to play in the Mexican League, instead of just mentioning Musial.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,623
NJ
It is so strange to me that the ownership group seems to get almost no love. They have not been perfect, but what team's owner has been? Imagine having the Wilpons, or Angelos, etc? I am 44 years old, and if you would have told me that I would get to witness 4 WS titles 20 years ago, I would have laughed you out of the room.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,424
Re: the Mookie 'fiasco' - to me, this is an example of 'Right Process, Poor Outcome'. By all accounts, the front office enjoyed an excellent relationship with Mookie, in particular with Raquel F. being his 'baseball mom'. They made multiple attempts to sign him to a market rate extension for players with multiple years of arbitration remaining. Mookie and his agents rebuffed every attempt and desired to go to free agency. Short of negotiating against themselves and agreeing to his salary demands, what else was the Red Sox organization supposed to do? If they do an equally good job in maintaining relations with other homegrown players and offer smart extensions when warranted, I believe that the Red Sox will be a successful baseball organization in the long term.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
49,973
No ownership or GM is perfect but the unnecessary errors must be infuriating. Henry’s telling the whole world publicly they needed to get under the luxury tax last fall made the job of doing so harder than it needed to be, although they seem to have ended up with a nice package anyway (that’s what she said).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
18,452
where I was last at
Its hard to knock the ownership group that has won 4 WS in the past 15 years. But the past several years have been a roller coaster ride, a lot of high highs and low lows. From the chicken and beer collapse of 2011, and the firing of Francona for Valentine, to '13s Boston Strong championship and then the low-balling of Lester, blowing up the team, etc, (you folks know the rest) makes one wonder about the medium-term/long-term planning applied to one of the more valuable franchises in sport.

I'm giving Henry &Co the benefit of the doubt, and will assume through his unconventional and unpopular trade of the smiling face of the franchise, the baseball historian Henry is trying to re-create the aura of the pre-Babe and post-Babe Ruth eras for today's Sox fans.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,492
Betts is definitely an emotional trigger that causes Boston fans to denigrate a group that has been great on the whole.

If Brady leaves, that emotion will flow (hard) in another direction, and Henry et al will be loved/not based on October baseball.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,424
No disrespect to Mookie, but the most important player in modern Red Sox history was David Ortiz and these owners made sure he never got close to getting away. That seems to have been taken for granted by Sox fans.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,252
Hingham, MA
No disrespect to Mookie, but the most important player in modern Red Sox history was David Ortiz and these owners made sure he never got close to getting away. That seems to have been taken for granted by Sox fans.
As Belichick always notes, it takes two sides to make a deal. One of the reasons Ortiz never left (or came close really) is because he never showed an interest in testing free agency and getting paid top dollar. So in a sense he got a hometown discount, made a ton of money, and enjoyed his baseball experience. But if he had tried to command top dollar, he likely wouldn't have retired as a Sox.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
28,796
No disrespect to Mookie, but the most important player in modern Red Sox history was David Ortiz and these owners made sure he never got close to getting away. That seems to have been taken for granted by Sox fans.
No disrespect to Ortiz, but they couldn't really trade him to LAD or another NL team.

Nomar
Manny
Mookie

All shipped out (batting ".500" there).

Lester
Pedro

Pitchers, not resigned (batting .500 there too).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,279
Maine
As Belichick always notes, it takes two sides to make a deal. One of the reasons Ortiz never left (or came close really) is because he never showed an interest in testing free agency and getting paid top dollar. So in a sense he got a hometown discount, made a ton of money, and enjoyed his baseball experience. But if he had tried to command top dollar, he likely wouldn't have retired as a Sox.
This is true. The closest he got to no longer being on the Red Sox was following the 2011 season when he was technically a free agent for a month before accepting the Sox offer of arbitration (the equivalent of a QO today). He was also a 36-year-old DH who had limited options at that point.

You have to wonder how much his experience with the Twins went into his desire to sign extensions and stay in Boston. By that I mean that his time with the Twins, who failed to appreciate what he was (trying to change his approach), probably helped him appreciate how good he had it in Boston. Betts didn't have that perspective. Not that that should be held against him, either.
 

Dick Pole Upside

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
4,409
39.932N, -85.848W
It's perfectly fair to judge and criticize their moves and decisions on a micro-level. And for all the energy and resources they have put into marketing and PR throughout their tenure, they still kind of suck at it. But at a macro level, they've been everything you could reasonably hope for. The on-field success speaks for itself, but the improvement in the ballpark experience can't be overstated. Like others here, I started going to Fenway in the 70's as a kid, and it is night and day in every respect between then and now. Cleanliness, safety/security, amenities/concessions, restrooms, the neighborhood, all of it. By the mid/late 90's, I was completely in the build a new ballpark camp. Ownership had and executed a vision for the ballpark that I could have never imagined. I was happy to be dead wrong about not wanting to keep Fenway, and for that alone I appreciate them very much. And, they delivered 4 freaking WS titles. When many of us were convinced we wouldn't see one in our lifetime. @The Allented Mr Ripley is correct. There is a substantial percentage of the fan base who have adapted the worst characteristics of entitled Yankee fans. Suppose it was inevitable.
I am 100% aligned with this perspective.

For those saying the Sox need to leverage a PR firm, they have worked with the same local PR folks pretty much since they've owned the team. A fellow poster (not me) is close with one of the principals of the PR outfit, as this PR team also supported the company I used to work for and does/did great work.

Given that, in my estimation, Henry is open to coaching but just isn't comfortable in public settings. Hence you get these really awkward exchanges. Most recently, his written statement to Sox fans tried to introduce some personalization to the Mookie trade to try and be relatable (some might compare to Nomar... imagine Stan Musial getting traded), but it was received like chum in the water by a bloodthirsty media and fanbase.

I don't know this, but my impression is that Werner is more of a know-it-all based on his TV production background, and although he receives guidance, he just comes across as someone looking to make a fast buck or divert attention to unimportant aspects of the team (we received significant value... we need more sexy players...).

I'll contrast yesterday's fiasco with the season ticket holder conference call I listened in on this morning with Sam Kennedy and Chaim Bloom. Granted, the audience was different (i.e. "minority investors" vs. media), but Kennedy and Bloom were thankful, appreciative, rational, and very comfortable addressing some of the same tough questions that Henry/Werner received yesterday and lit themselves on fire.

Paraphrasing Bloom: You're right to think that the loss of Betts and Price will make it difficult to be a 108-win team, but there is still a lot of talent on this team, and you should expect better than the 84 wins you got last year. Plus, we are adding to the talent base to raise the potential floor on this team in a way that may not be exciting or even visible today, but should lead to more wins this year that were losses last year because the bottom of the roster didn't have the talent to overcome injuries to the top of the roster. The Yankees were able to live through a ton of injuries, the Red Sox were not. We're trying to fix that for 2020 and beyond.

tl;dr: the owners are awkward goofballs, but they've done a ton for the fanbase and have very competent people heading up the baseball organization.
 

DarthAvershen

lurker
Feb 3, 2020
32
Massachusetts
I should have started by saying I am a big fan of this ownership! Their success speaks for itself but I also love how they have brought new ideas and energy to Fenway(I’m a simpleton but I even love the home grown vegetables growing on the roof at Fenway).

I have an 8 and 4 year old girls..I’m going to do a history lesson for them. Watch a little Sports Century Ted Williams & Yaz then maybe the history of Fenway park. Then when they appreciate the past I will let them watch the championship season videos! There are plenty of articles on the web about the best order to show your kids the Star Wars movies... we should establish an onboarding process for our kids to join the Red Sox cult!!
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,177
Twin Cities
...
The Sox, on the other hand, have had a handful of last-place finishes, certainly, wrapped around four championships. I'll take getting to the World Series and winning it than having lots of first-round exits (which they also have in recent years, to be fair).

If the cost of winning those championships is a few bad seasons, I'm OK with that trade-off.
Same for me. I also agree with others' perception that the complaints are exposing a sense of entitlement that is . . . disappointing.

For those who are down on Sox ownership, consider: Rather than what the Sox have achieved since Henry et al took over in 2002, would you have preferred a run like the Braves had from 1991-2005, where they finished first in 14 out of 15 years, but only won 1 of 5 WS? (And, after getting swept in 1999, they never make it back to the WS.)
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
19,752
Imagine having the Wilpons, or Angelos, etc?
Go further than this. Are there 10 other owners in US pro sports that you would rather have than the current Red Sox owners? Even taking out the really bad ones (Angelos, Snyder, Dolan, etc.), which owners would you rather have? Here are all of the owners (or majority owner) in NFL, NBA, and MLB. Of the 90 or so names on this list, you can scratch off around 30 of them as someone you wouldn't want buying a ticket to a Red Sox game.

Even if people can find ten they'd rather have, the odds of getting someone as good as Henry are pretty low.

I don't know what's wrong with people. We should be thanking God every single day that the Red Sox are owned by this ownership group. Either that or be forced to root for the Redskins.

NFL:
Arizona Cardinals: Estate of Bill Bidwill
Atlanta Falcons: Arthur Blank
Baltimore Ravens: Steve Bisciotti
Buffalo Bills: Kim and Terry Pegula
Carolina Panthers: David Tepper
Chicago Bears: Virginia Halas McCaskey
Cincinnati Bengals: Mike Brown
Cleveland Browns: Jimmy and Dee Haslam
Dallas Cowboys: Jerry Jones
Denver Broncos: (Trustee)
Detroit Lions: Martha Ford
Green Bay Packers: Green Bay Packers, Inc.
Houston Texans: Janice McNair and family
Indianapolis Colts: Jim Irsay
Jacksonville Jaguars: Shahid Khan
Kansas City Chiefs: Clark Hunt and siblings
Los Angeles Chargers: Dean Spanos
Los Angeles Rams: Stan Kroenke
Miami Dolphins: Stephen M. Ross
Minnesota Vikings: Zygi Wilf
New England Patriots: Robert Kraft
New Orleans Saints: Gayle Benson
New York Giants: John Mara (50%)/ Steve Tisch (50%)
New York Jets: Robert Wood Johnson IV
Oakland Raiders: Carol and Mark Davis
Philadelphia Eagles: Jeffrey Lurie
Pittsburgh Steelers: Art Rooney II and family
San Francisco 49ers: Denise DeBartolo York and Jed York
Seattle Seahawks: Jody Allen as Trustee
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Bryan Glazer and siblings
Tennessee Titans: Amy Adams Strunk
Washington Redskins: Dan Snyder

NBA:
Atlanta Hawks: Tony Ressler (and others)
Boston Celtics: Wyc Grousbeck
Brooklyn Nets: Joseph Tsai
Charlotte Hornets: Michael Jordan
Chicago Bulls: Jerry Reinsdorf
Cleveland Cavaliers: Dan Gilbert
Dallas Mavericks: Mark Cuban
Denver Nuggets: Ann Walton Kroenke
Detroit Pistons: Tom Gores
Golden State Warriors: Joe Lacob (majority), Peter Guber
Houston Rockets: Tilman Fertitta
Indiana Pacers: Herbert Simon
Los Angeles Clippers: Steve Ballmer
Los Angeles Lakers: Jeanie Buss and siblings
Memphis Grizzlies: Robert J Pera
Miami Heat: Micky Arison
Milwaukee Bucks: Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens
Minnesota Timberwolves: Glen Taylor
New Orleans Pelicans: Gayle Benson
New York Knicks: James Dolan
Oklahoma City Thunder: Clay Bennett
Orlando Magic: Dan DeVos
Philadelphia 76ers: Joshua Harris + others
Phoenix Suns: Robert Sarver
Portland Trail Blazers: Jody Allen
Sacramento Kings: Vivek Ranadivé, + others
San Antonio Spurs: Peter Holt
Toronto Raptors: Larry Tanenbaum, Rogers Communications, and BCE
Utah Jazz: Gail Miller
Washington Wizards: Ted Leonsis

MLB:
Arizona Diamondbacks: Ken Kendrick
Atlanta Braves: Liberty Media
Baltimore Orioles: Peter Angelos
Chicago Cubs: Thomas S. Ricketts
Chicago White Sox: Jerry Reinsdorf
Cincinnati Reds: Bob Castellini
Cleveland Indians: Larry Dolan
Colorado Rockies: Charlie Monfort
Detroit Tigers: Christopher Ilitch
Houston Astros: Jim Crane
Kansas City Royals: John Sherman
Los Angeles Angels: Arturo Moreno
Los Angeles Dodgers: Mark Walter
Miami Marlins: Bruce Sherman
Milwaukee Brewers: Mark Attanasio
Minnesota Twins: Jim Pohlad
New York Mets: Fred Wilpon
New York Yankees: Hal Steinbrenner
Oakland Athletics: John J. Fisher
Philadelphia Phillies: John S. Middleton
Pittsburgh Pirates: Robert Nutting
San Diego Padres: Ron Fowler
San Francisco Giants: Charlie Johnson
Seattle Mariners: John W. Stanton
St. Louis Cardinals: William DeWitt, Jr.
Tampa Bay Rays: Stuart Sternberg
Texas Rangers: Ray Davis
Toronto Blue Jays: Rogers Communications
Washington Nationals: Lerner Enterprises