Our ownership group

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I guess I’m looking at on macro level.. for the better part of the last 20 years Ainge(2003) and Belichick(2000) have been the face of their respective team’s personnel decisions. Yes there have been others involved that have come and gone but the head honchos stayed in place. I am wrong about Neely as I though he started earlier than 2007.
Belichick has 6 rings
Ainge has 1
Sox ownership has 4.

I don't see a cause/effect here
 

dixoncox

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
30
It's amazing how much turnover they've had considering how many championships they've won. Since the Henry group bought the team their championship total been matched by only the Spurs (4) and Patriots (5) among the major sports leagues. Those teams have had one coach each over that time while Roenicke will be number six here.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I don't count Mike Port's one year as a black mark against the team - they decided that Dan Duquette needed to go and then only kept Port on for the year after swinging for the fences with Billy Beane and missing.

Likewise, when things couldn't be patched up with Theo Epstein and the two sides parted in 2011, they went with continuity in elevating his protege Ben Cherington to the GM's chair, who they then kept in the role for almost four years. The major changes at the baseball executive level were the seemingly abrupt decision to hire Dave Dombrowski in 2015 and go all-in to chase a title, and the decision last year to fire Dombrowski and return to a 'sustainable' operating model with the ultimate hiring of Chaim Bloom.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I don't count Mike Port's one year as a black mark against the team - they decided that Dan Duquette needed to go and then only kept Port on for the year after swinging for the fences with Billy Beane and missing.
The Beane pursuit happened in fall 2002, not spring, so the fall back after missing out on him was Theo. Port stayed on as the interim after Duquette was fired just before spring training 2002, because there wasn't much in the way of available alternatives that late in the off-season.

I do understand why, in discussing continuity, it makes sense to just ignore Port. While the ownership group was in place for the 2002 season, that team as a whole really wasn't something that they had much of a hand in. 2003 with the hiring of Theo and then 2004 with the hiring of Tito was when this ownership group actually was able to implement something of their own operating vision. Viewed in that context, it really is just the Dombrowski years that stick out as a diversion from the path they'd been following all along. And frankly, that all-in approach was clear from the moment he was hired. I remember the fear around here being that he was going to strip the farm to win a title. Mission accomplished.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
717
If I had told you before this ownership group bought the team that (a) they would win 4 titles in 18 years, (b) the first title would be a Hollywood style thrill ride, with a 0-3 Comeback against the Hated Yankees, (c) by around year 18, the ownership group would be extremely unpopular with Sox fans and (d) the CEO while they won the first three titles would be reviled, I think you would have said that I was nuts and that what I posited was impossible or, at the least, highly unlikely.

My take is that the owners have done a lot of really great things and have made some recent moves that are difficult to swallow. And that they can be tone deaf at times. But in my view, the glass is always half full, and these guys have a LOT of equity built up with me. I always knew that the Curse nonsense was just that but at the same time, I saw relatives who were hard core Sox fans go to their grave before they saw the Red Sox win a title, and I wondered if that might happen to me, as well.

The same applies to Luchinno, in my opinion. Whatever bad stuff people attribute to him, a lot of really good things happened on his watch.

This does not mean, however, that I think individual decisions should not be criticized. The Mookie trade is very low hanging fruit for me, as is the "the CBT had nothing to do with it" canard. But I don't understand the level of hate or dislike for a group who has enjoyed such phenomenal overall success, especially in the context of decades of near misses and pain.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
This is absolute garbage, and the sort of thing a certain writer on the Globe would love to perpetuate - but, again, it's absolute garbage.
Have you read any of the threads?

There are pages and pages that recount all of the horrible mistakes that this ownership group has made in their time here. These posts include multiple mentions of how cheap and stupid they are. They also include gripes about which announcers the team chose to retain.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If the single winningest team in the majors in this millennium, who is consistently at the top of spending lists is taking a beating for being both stupid and cheap somehow, then "we must just be miserable people" is not a garbage answer. Alternatives include "we have gone full-on entitled dbags" or "we lack the ability to look at facts", and it's fair to stand in that camp too.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
The same applies to Luchinno, in my opinion. Whatever bad stuff people attribute to him, a lot of really good things happened on his watch.
The good things that Lucchino presided over as CEO have to be weighed against some significant negatives, starting with his running out of town a homegrown Hall of Fame executive (and local guy to boot) and the best manager in team history. Someone needed to tell LL to put his ego aside and give Theo the same title and powers that they would later give to Dave Dombrowski. Larry is the closest thing to a villain in this story IMO, three world championships or not.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
It's frustrating that the ownership couldn't be more honest about the Mookie trade. People will disagree about the value of resetting the CBT, but to say that the trade had nothing to do with the CBT is a lie, and everyone knows it. It's insulting to the fans. They could have just said "Look, we have spent a lot of money on this club, and will continue to do so in the future. But, the reality of baseball economics is that after you have exceeded the luxury tax threshold for a few years, it is necessary to reset it so that you can continue to compete in future years. That is the way that every other team in baseball operates, and the way that we feel we need to operate in order to put the best possible product on the field". Many people wouldn't like that answer, but I think more people would like it than what they did say, which was complete nonsense.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
717
The good things that Lucchino presided over as CEO have to be weighed against some significant negatives, starting with his running out of town a homegrown Hall of Fame executive (and local guy to boot) and the best manager in team history. Someone needed to tell LL to put his ego aside and give Theo the same title and powers that they would later give to Dave Dombrowski. Larry is the closest thing to a villain in this story IMO, three world championships or not.
Did LL really run Tito out of town?

Putting who did what to whom in the aftermath of Tito's departure aside for the moment, the fact remains that the 2011 Red Sox suffered a pretty horrible collapse. There were multiple causes, of course, and the pitching was high on the list. But I think it's at least arguable that Terry Francona's in game managing and handling of the clubhouse played a role in what happened that year. I also had the impression at the time that the parting was a mutual decision and that TIto was a little burnt out from the Boston grind. That Tito was maligned in the Hohler article doesn't change that reality.

As to Theo, it's tempting and possibly fair to say that LL should have known to get out of the way and let Theo run things. But that ignores some of the questionable and even Dombrowski like moves (Carl Crawford) that Theo made, and his role in assembling the 2011 team. (And true/fair, LL may be a big part of why Theo made some of his mistakes).

My sense is that there's probably a lot more complexity to the relationships and roles of all of the parties than we as fans can truly appreciate. Of course, there's no defending the Bobby Valentine hire, which sure seems to have been his doing.

But like my reaction to the owners, I think it's convenient and short sighted to charge him with a series of "CEO crimes" and not take into account the many good decisions he made or was part of on the way to three titles. Even with respect to Theo and Tito, someone had to bring them in to the fold in the first place, and that someone includes the owners and executive that have become punching bags for so many.

I guess, bottom line, I have a hard time calling the CEO of such a successful operation a villain.

A credible tell all book would be fascinating reading.
 
Last edited:

Melrose Diner

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 11, 2020
502
I think part of the big difference between Belichick + the Red Sox brass is consistency, and how the general reaction to certain decisions plays into that. The Patriots tend to approach all Mookie-like scenarios the same; they have a price they're willing to pay and if the market goes above that then that player is gone. We've beat our heads into the ground angry over this in the past (Chandler Jones, Flowers last year, Thuney coming up), but at the very least we pretty much know what to expect, like it or not.

For the Red Sox ownership to make what's viewed as a penny-pinching move (whether that's fair or not to call it that) sort of flies in the face of a lot of the decisions they've made in the past. Why should anyone buy the explanations they're putting out around letting Mookie go when we've seen them dump money at guys from outside the organization that come in and don't perform at all? Obviously there are luxury tax implications in 2020, and the people on this board understand that stuff more than Joe from Quincy, but again -- letting Mookie go over money doesn't make sense when you have $64 million being paid to Nate Eovaldi, Jackie Bradley, David Price, Pablo Sandoval, and Rusney Castillo this year (Castillo not counting against the tax). It's been mentioned in this thread that it seems like there's no consistent plan or organizational philosophy with these things, and I would agree.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
But like my reaction to the owners, I think it's convenient and short sighted to charge him with a series of "CEO crimes" and not take into account the many good decisions he made or was part of on the way to three titles. Even with respect to Theo and Tito, someone had to bring them in to the fold in the first place, and that someone includes the owners and executive that have become punching bags for so many.

I guess, bottom line, I have a hard time calling the CEO of such a successful operation a villain.
I don't care how many "CEO crimes" this group has committed, as long as the number is among the fewest in MLB during their tenure, which I'm confident it is.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I guess it was too much to hope that Henry and Werner would take the high road and use their considerable financial resources to position the Boston Red Sox as an organization that takes care of its people even in the worst of times:

https://theathletic.com/1845938/2020/05/29/red-sox-pay-cuts/
Just a stupid, stupid move with terrible optics - a penny-wise, pound-foolish tactic that is going to damage their ability to attract and retain the most desirable talent.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,734
Right, everything happening now in MLB is against the backdrop of 1) record-high revenues every year since at least 2001 and 2) capital appreciation of every single team's value by hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 5 or 10 or 15 years.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,101
No, it's actually quite ridiculous given the wealth of ownership.
I dunno, plenty of people have been hit way harder than this. I'm not losing sleep for some white collar workers taking a 20% pay cut.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,253
considering the Royals, a very small-market team, are not cutting any minor leaguers, it looks pretty bad. (I don't know what the Royals are doing about executives, but as far as optics goes it doesn't matter IMO).

on the other hand, no furloughs is better than the Angels.

it sucks the owners refuse to be charitable and take a temporary loss, when they have plenty, and I mean plenty, of excess, for the better of everyone.
 

DieHardSoxFan1

Smarter than Theo, just ask him
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2003
2,833
Lifelong Mid-Westerner
Right, everything happening now in MLB is against the backdrop of 1) record-high revenues every year since at least 2001) and 2) capital appreciation of every single team's value by hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 5 or 10 or 15 years.
And during these record-breaking years, I highly doubt that the salaries of club employees were suddenly adjusted upwards to reflect the spike in revenues.

Unless Moondog owns a stake in the team, I cannot fathom why any fan would support billionaire owners who pocket the profits and socialize the losses.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
You would have thought that , after their spectacular own goal with initially using the government furlough program at Liverpool, they’d be a little more sensitive to PR gaffes .. sadly, that does not appear to be the case. How much money is this going to save them - versus the vitriol being piled onto them?
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
I 'd prefer ownership eat all the ongoing losses, but companies all over are doing this. Relatively speaking, these cuts are reasonable. They don't impact the lowest paid employees, or the first $50,000 earned, they're progressively tiered, and they avoid layoffs. Maybe they could have protected the first $75,000, or only cut salaries above $150,000, but I don't know what numbers they're trying to reach. And the "optics" of cuts likely look the same in any event.
 
Last edited:

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I'm all for sleep, but while I'm awake I'd prefer to limit the number of people being hit during this. The less people hit, the better.

I'm also concerned about the timing of this. Makes me think there isn't much organizational optimism play will be resuming. Otherwise, why do this now?
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
I'm also concerned about the timing of this. Makes me think there isn't much organizational optimism play will be resuming. Otherwise, why do this now?
My guess is it’s happening now because there is a better idea of the range of outcomes now than a few weeks or months ago. Cuts were always coming, but now management has a better idea of how to size them to meet whatever size loss ownership is willing to incur this year.
 

Earthbound64

Member
SoSH Member
I'm also concerned about the timing of this. Makes me think there isn't much organizational optimism play will be resuming. Otherwise, why do this now?
I was talking to the Minnesota Twins season ticket office 2 days ago, and they weren't even willing to take deposits on any tickets (even 10-ticket packages) for the 2020 season, they're putting 2020 to bed and looking toward 2021 already.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I was talking to the Minnesota Twins season ticket office 2 days ago, and they weren't even willing to take deposits on any tickets (even 10-ticket packages) for the 2020 season, they're putting 2020 to bed and looking toward 2021 already.
There's a difference between not selling tickets for 2020 and there not being any games played at all in 2020. Shouldn't be a surprise at all that teams aren't looking to take any money for tickets that are very likely going to have to be refunded anyway (games played will most likely be in empty stadiums). I don't see that as a reflection at all on whether there will be any baseball played this year.
 

Earthbound64

Member
SoSH Member
There's a difference between not selling tickets for 2020 and there not being any games played at all in 2020. Shouldn't be a surprise at all that teams aren't looking to take any money for tickets that are very likely going to have to be refunded anyway (games played will most likely be in empty stadiums). I don't see that as a reflection at all on whether there will be any baseball played this year.
Fair enough.
I was just surprised that they weren't even willing to take money at all.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I 'd prefer ownership eat all the ongoing losses, but companies all over are doing this. Relatively speaking, these cuts are reasonable. They don't impact the lowest paid employees, or the first $50,000 earned, they're progressively tiered, and they avoid layoffs. Maybe they could have protected the first $75,000, or only cut salaries above $150,000, but I don't know what numbers they're trying to reach. And the "optics" of cuts likely look the same in any event.
YMMV, but I find it extremely distasteful. Worse than that, it's just stupid. A franchise like the Red Sox should be aspiring to be the premier destination for top talent in the executive and player development areas and this damages that status. We have seen many stories over the last ten weeks of much smaller businesses finding a way to take care of their employees when they were shut down, often at the owner's expense. I simply cannot believe that ownership's situation is so dire that these piddling measures are going to make a material difference.

I don't know why, but this has really just hit me the wrong way. While I do appreciate ownership's willingness to maintain a top payroll, there is a pattern of poor organizational decisions that are starting to pile up - forcing the FO to sign players like Carl Crawford and John Lackey to appease NESN, running off Theo and Tito, hiring He Who Shall Not Be named as manager, low-balling Jon Lester, letting the team's once industry-leading analytics brainpower to atrophy, the crappy way Dave Dombrowski was interviewed and brought in unbeknownst to Ben Cherington, the way Dombrowsky himself was dismissed, and now this - that is really causing me to reconsider my beliefs about how smart they really are.