How Much Does Ownership’s Level of Spending Affect Your Fandom ?

oumbi · Jan 20, 2024

Do you plan to put a poll up as part of the thread? That might be helpful to us.

CKDexterHaven · Jan 20, 2024

I have watched ~125 Sox games per year, for the past ~10 years*. Recognizing that there is still time and that two ‘major’ pitchers are still on the market, I’m almost resigned to believing I will be watching a team that performs again at the .500 level, with peaks that tickle the optimism, but valleys that crush the soul. Without adding a No. 1, I will have lost faith in ownership and won’t commit nearly as much time to my viewership. Wondering now how much of it is an addiction, and how much is ’just habit,’ but my intention would be to halve my ‘time investment.’ At least. This season is a turning point. Went through nearly the same thing with my college (alum) basketball team, and my commitment has absolutely shown a marked change.

I should add that I’m not looking at total millions in payroll or even an increase or decrease from last year—just at roster composition, proactivity in the market, and whether there are significant moves to constitute sincere effort to get back into contention now, not when a batch of kids ‘ripen.’

*Exclusively a Sox fan since ‘77.

MFYankees · Jan 20, 2024

My love for the sport will stay strong and I'll watch, listen to, or otherwise follow the games, but having ownership talk to us about the "Fenway experience" is a severe insult. I'll retaliate by directing my sports dollars (except for MLB TV) elsewhere.

Lose Remerswaal · Jan 20, 2024

Good question. If I was still local I think I’d be at Fenway much less often. Since they only come to my neighborhood a couple times a year now, I will see most of their local games.

mauf · Jan 20, 2024

I won’t be happy if they spend and field a bad team. I won’t be upset if they don’t spend and field a good team. I’ll be more patient with a team that looks good on paper than one that doesn’t — not on principle, but because it’s one thing to be optimistic that underperformance will turn around, and another to hope that a crappy team playing to its true talent level will suddenly start playing like a good team.

I don’t know if this answers the question. Spending might spur a bit of optimism on the margin, but at the end of the day it’s about winning.

RG33 · Jan 20, 2024

Zero. I don’t think about it and am exhausted from reading about it incessantly.

streeter88 · Jan 20, 2024

I’ve been a fan since 1977, and from afar since 1989. The Red Sox have always been my link back to New England and to my family who still live there. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult the last few years both family and the Red Sox have struggled. 2019-2020 were both pretty awful years on all fronts.

Finally, Red Sox ownership has decided to make a change, and it started with some optimism. What’s unfortunate is that without even playing a single game, ownership have managed to squander the good will that came from the Breslow hire.

Not spending more isn’t the reason I’m disappointed, but if you’re going to try to create optimism and signal a change in direction you actually have to follow through with it. Have to suspend my disbelief I guess until the games actually start. As someone much wiser than me once said, there are no points for winning the off-season.

simplicio · Jan 20, 2024

Right now, it doesn't really. I'm bummed they aren't making a play for Montgomery, but I'm also used to the Bloom teams, and I think what they have this year has as much of a chance of competing as those even if they didn't make the big push forward I was hoping for. Health & luck etc.

I'm honestly still more excited for this season than I have been since 2019. I have high hopes for Breslow and Bailey fixing the pitching problems of the last couple years, for year two of Casas and Yoshida being professional hitters, for watching our new Story/Grissom tandem, for those kids in AA getting tantalizingly close. I get a lot of joy in seeing our ragtag bunch succeed against the odds and there's plenty of room for that. It gets closer every day and I can't wait.

That said, I'm not local, my financial investment is zero. My sole investment is the time spent watching the games and bullshitting here with you all. So fuck ownership absolutely for not providing us a product with can all get behind together. I'm deeply tired of the board being at war.

Nacl · Jan 20, 2024

Ownership has consistently spent at around the cap level, frequently above it, I have no reason to believe that they are changing that paradigm. If, for some reason, this year, or next they are $20M or $30M below the cap, I don't think that makes them a "mid-market" team. In any case, the size of their payroll won't impact my fandom an iota. If they are putting an entertaining product on the field and are competing for a playoff spot I'll watch.

CR67dream · Jan 20, 2024

With @McSweeny 's blessing, I added a quick poll. Let me know if there's a response I should add, this was just quick and dirty. As always, don't let the poll keep you from expanding in the thread.

PRabbit · Jan 20, 2024

I'll only complain about spending if (big if) the trade deadline comes, they're outperforming expectations (as in, contending for a playoff spot), and don't do anything.

That being said, they've always been behind the Cs and more recently the Bruins for me. I'm a fan, I just don't breathe baseball like I did as a kid.

CR67dream · Jan 20, 2024

I voted 2, but also agree with the sentiment at the end of number three.

Seels · Jan 20, 2024

It's not spending in a vacuum, so I can't answer this. We don't need to be the Dodgers or Yankees. It's the combination of spending, refusing to sign fan favorites that came up on the team, the 'bottom line' way the team is managed as far as selling uniform patches, NESN subscriptions for $30, etc,

I think we all have a different look of the last few years if the team isn't actively charging its fans the most money in baseball to experience the team. If the team is going to act so transactional, why shouldn't we?

The team is an investment, time wise and emotionally, for fans. If we don't feel like the FO is putting on a good faith effort (and they aren't), why should we return the favor?

I probably watched around 140 games a year every year from 1991-2019. I don't know if I've watched 10 games since. The way the team wins back fans like me isn't by spending for the sake of spending, I don't want to see them go after the Blake Snell's of the world. It's by ensuring that their young players will be on the team in future years.

jbupstate · Jan 20, 2024

#3 for me. Spending doesn’t guarantee anything.

I have been a fan since 1975 and Fenway will always be an experience for me. I am grateful for FSG and believe their investment in the team and Fenway have made the last 20 years of my fandom wonderful. Banners fly forever.

I also believe the 2024 team will be competitive. If they trade Casas or Bello for prospects in three years I might change my tune.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Jan 20, 2024

CR67dream said:
With @McSweeny 's blessing, I added a quick poll. Let me know if there's a response I should add, this was just quick and dirty. As always, don't let the poll keep you from expanding in the thread.

I feel like I’m in between 2 and 3- or a third option. It’s not my money and I’m still going to pay attention but it’d be nice if they were competitive. If Kennedy can be believed they’re not really and for no reason…. IMO they’re Montgomery and Turner away from being 90 wins.

grepal · Jan 20, 2024

Lose Remerswaal said:
Good question. If I was still local I think I’d be at Fenway much less often. Since they only come to my neighborhood a couple times a year now, I will see most of their local games.

Not going to Fenway and canceling NESN after hockey season. Will go to some Yard Goat and WooSox games

Brianish · Jan 20, 2024

I think I'm having trouble with "affect your fandom" as a criterion. It's not going to make me less of a fan of the Sox, and it's certainly not going to make me stop rooting for them, but I'm going to spend less money on the team if I don't think it'll end up on the field. It's getting to the point where I'm going to think twice before I pay for The Fenway Experience, even though I love Fenway. It's certainly making me less likely to buy team merchandise and the like.

Average Game James · Jan 20, 2024

None of the poll questions really capture my feelings either… I want the team to be good and entertaining at whatever cost it takes to achieve that result. I generally agree with the premise a well run team can be consistently competitive with a budget of somewhere in the $225 million range and am not expecting the Sox to be the Dodgers. But the Red Sox have not been a well run team the past several years and do not have sufficient cost controlled talent to be competitive with a $200 million payroll. I appreciate there is a longer term plan in place including more focus on pitching development infrastructure, but in the short term ownership should be paying the price for its poor decision making, not fans. I can understand not wanting to go out 7-8 years on guys like Snell/Montgomery, but I would be very frustrated if there is not more willingness to spend shorter term money even if it takes them into the $235 million+ range (while staying under the draft pick penalty level) to make the team more competitive. If ownership doesn’t view the current team as worth investing its money into, why should it expect the fans to pay up? Maybe I’ll make it to a game, but I won’t go out of my way to get to Fenway this year and I wouldn’t be surprised if my NESN subscription lapses again this year. There are too many other things I can do with my time than watch a team that’s probably playing for 4th place.

CR67dream · Jan 20, 2024

Average Game James said:
None of the poll questions really capture my feelings either…

They're really not designed to be definitive, I always like to leave room for nuance in the thread, but I added @Sandy Leon Trotsky 's question because you guys are both right. It's at the bottom, I'd break the poll if I start screwing around with trying to move stuff.

There is also an option to change your vote.

mannydelcarwreck · Jan 20, 2024

Disappointed for sure with the offseason but there’s time left. I don’t endorse a salary dump but I do endorse growing the farm.

I think it’s very naive to think Breslow will markedly improve the current pitching performance.

You know what will? Better talent.

OCD SS · Jan 20, 2024

There isn’t a good choice for me; the issue isn’t the team spending, it’s are they trying to win; spending can be a proxy for that, but spending just to spend doesn’t guarantee interest (the Panda/ Hanley season wasn’t that interesting despite those contracts). If the team is playing bad baseball it’s not going to be fun/ interesting to watch…

I’ll still get MLB TV, but I always get it for half off via making a donation to the player’s authority. I wouldn’t order it outright, at full prices I’d just get the radio subscription.

sezwho · Jan 20, 2024

If they aren’t spending near the top of the list then on some level I feel cheated. Even if they produced an 88 win team I’d still be thinking they could fill a hole w/ dollars and get to 90.

Winning solves lots of problems, and I’d certainly tune in for it, but unless they are in WS competition I’m still giving them the stink eye if it’s on short money.

BigSoxFan · Jan 20, 2024

I have the following criteria that generally influences my interest in the Sox, not necessarily in this order:

1. Record
2. Presence of stars
3. Entertaining style of play
4. Contributions from farm
5. Likability of players on team
6. Owner commitment to spending

The 2024 team doesn’t really figure to score too well here so my interest in this team will likely be pretty lukewarm but I’ll still be paying attention because I gotta watch something. But I certainly won’t be living and dying with this team like I used to.

8slim · Jan 20, 2024

Not my fandom writ large, but my satisfaction with the team relative to the team’s success.

What I want… no, what I expect… is that the Red Sox attempt to field a playoff-caliber teams most seasons.

Not *be* a playoff team most seasons. That’s not a fair expectation. But *attempt* to be a playoff caliber team.

The Sox haven’t done that much the past few years. They spackled a roster together, and hoped they’d catch some of that 2013 magic.

Spending on good free agent acquisitions is one of the ways a team accomplishes that. We’ve often either not spent enough to get optimal players, or we’ve spent poorly.

So yeah, if the front office is making a choice to refuse to spend what it takes to field the most competitive teams then it affects my fandom. Basically, my attention will wane significantly once it’s clear the team isn’t a contender. That happened last season in August.

None of the poll choices reflects my POV so I didn’t vote.

HfxBob · Jan 21, 2024

The way I would put it is that if they're not spending in a particular year, there has to be a good reason for it. There have been years they didn't spend much but it was perfectly understandable because of the team's situation, existing contracts etc.

And like many Red Sox fans, I think, I didn't complain much about spending by this ownership until recent years. This year has really been a flashpoint year for fairly obvious reasons. This is the first time I have felt that ownership is cheating the fans to a certain extent, that they're not spending for reasons that they're not being straight with us about. Some of this is suspicion about enterprises outside the baseball team that are impacting the baseball team.

jlu52 · Jan 21, 2024

I've been a Red Sox fan for a long time. Watched Teddy Ballgame in the flesh at Fenway, during his last 3 years playing. Survived Haywood and Buddy's leadership, and the gerbil of a manager who cost us a world series or 2, arguably. While current ownership doesn't always provide a warm and fuzzy feeling, they're the best the Red Sox have ever had, imho.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Jan 22, 2024

I went with option 3 as it's the closest to how I generally feel.

I don't care if they spend, per se. I care that they win and that they are run (of course, this is my opinion on what is deemed...) intelligently.

Just as an example, say that Andrew Bailey truly is a sorcerer and turns Bello, Crawford, Houck and Winckowski into Pedro(.85) , Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. At that point, I would neither expect nor encourage them to spend $210m on Corbin Burnes next year (though I would expect them to go up to $71m a year for Bailey to ensure he doesn't leave because he would then be more valuable than Ohtani).

Of course, the likelihood of that (or even turning them into Beckett, Lester, Lackey and Arroyo) happening is incredibly miniscule, but just to illustrate the point.

BeantownIdaho · Jan 22, 2024

I was not sure where to put this, but here is a link to a recent Hernandez interview after the fact. But in terms of ownerships level of spending and the whole topic of what the offers have really been, I found this quote interesting:

"Boston had both of those positions covered in Teoscar Hernández, and the team was a finalist for Hernández's services for the 2024 season. But they made him an embarrassing offer that the big-spending Los Angeles Dodgers blew out of the water."

https://bosoxinjection.com/posts/dodgers-teoscar-hernandez-free-agent-red-sox-contract-offer-own-worst-enemy-01hmhgtzz578

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Jan 22, 2024

BeantownIdaho said:
I was not sure where to put this, but here is a link to a recent Hernandez interview after the fact. But in terms of ownerships level of spending and the whole topic of what the offers have really been, I found this quote interesting:

"Boston had both of those positions covered in Teoscar Hernández, and the team was a finalist for Hernández's services for the 2024 season. But they made him an embarrassing offer that the big-spending Los Angeles Dodgers blew out of the water."

https://bosoxinjection.com/posts/dodgers-teoscar-hernandez-free-agent-red-sox-contract-offer-own-worst-enemy-01hmhgtzz578

That's a fanblog and probably lower quality that most of the dreck we post here.

BeantownIdaho · Jan 22, 2024

DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
That's a fanblog and probably lower quality that most of the dreck we post here.

The interview of Hernandez itself imbedded in the article is interesting. Probably should have just put just the interview rather than the blog.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1747478426976710937

simplicio · Jan 22, 2024

"embarrassing" = a two year guarantee at the same rate he got for 2023, during which he put up his worst numbers since 2019.

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Jan 22, 2024

BeantownIdaho said:
The interview of Hernandez itself imbedded in the article is interesting. Probably should have just put just the interview rather than the blog.

View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1747478426976710937

The "embarrassing" characterization was made by the author Katie (probably on their phone outside a Dunkin) - if that is even a person and not some form of idiotic AI - and links to another blog post that cites the Cotillo X on Hernandez signing with the Dodgers - Cotillo does not use such language. Once again, in my experience adults doing business rarely use the term "embarrassing" and more often than not characterize parties to a transaction as serious or not. "Embarrassing" is kind of the dead giveaway that its a fan - if someone gets caught up in how a negotiation looks to outsiders, they aren't really focused on the deal itself.

I get that this is another datapoint but missing out on players like Hernandez feels understandable. They aren't foundational so there is no need to get into a bidding war over them. It just looks worse when the team misses out on not just middling MLB talent but the players who actually are difference makers.

sezwho · Jan 22, 2024

DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
The "embarrassing" characterization was made by the author Katie (probably on their phone outside a Dunkin) - if that is even a person and not some form of idiotic AI - and links to another blog post that cites the Cotillo X on Hernandez signing with the Dodgers.

I get that this is another datapoint but missing out on players like Hernandez feels understandable. They aren't foundational so there is no need to get into a bidding war over them. It just looks worse when the team misses out on not just middling MLB talent but the players who actually are difference makers.

Did they not put an offer roughly half what he ended up accepting? 1x24 (some deferral) vs. 2x14 is what I recall but I can’t find link. If so, that’s in the embarrassing vicinity, and Teoscar wasn’t impressed.

simplicio · Jan 22, 2024

The AAV is $20.4m, or $75k more than the QO the Mariners didn't bother giving him. He's had 4 straight years of declining numbers, I don't see the embarrassment in any of this.

LogansDad · Jan 22, 2024

simplicio said:
The AAV is $20.4m, or $75k more than the QO the Mariners didn't bother giving him. He's had 4 straight years of declining numbers, I don't see the embarrassment in any of this.

It's so weird to me that failing to sign Teoscar Hernandez is generating this kind of vitriol. I think he would be due for a bit of a rebound from his Seattle numbers if he had come to Fenway, but his numbers before he got traded from Toronto were already on the decline.

His OPS by year from 2020 until 2023: .919 (50 games), .870, .807, .741 (Seattle) (OPS+: 146, 131, 128, 106).

He is also just plain bad defensively.

He's a decent to good player, but watching people call any kind of offer to him "embarrassing" is kind of laughable to me. All of Abreu, Yoshida, Duran and O'Neill (and even Refsnyder, against LHP's) have a good shot at putting up a 106 OPS+ this season, for far less money.

I want the team to spend money, too, but I want them to do it smartly. I want Jordan Montgomery in a Red Sox uniform, but not if is costs 8 years and $30M+ per year. If someone signs him for like 4/$80M, I will probably be upset if it isn't the Sox, but if Texas signs him for 6/$180M then I won't even be able to generate any ire (much like the Dodgers and Yamamoto).

People getting angry about not signing Teoscar Freaking Hernandez gives me the feeling of being angry just for the sake of being angry. I just don't understand it.

ShaneTrot · Jan 22, 2024

I know starting pitching is at a premium but I am shocked that a big-market team like the Sox has such a lousy/cheap rotation. No pitcher is a given but you would have thought they would have ponied up or traded for a top-10-15 starter. I guess Sale was that guy and they chose poorly. I look at this team and I think we are just doomed to be a bottom dweller in the AL East because every other team has better options in the rotation.

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Jan 22, 2024

sezwho said:
Did they not put an offer roughly half what he ended up accepting? 1x24 (some deferral) vs. 2x14 is what I recall but I can’t find link. If so, that’s in the embarrassing vicinity, and Teoscar wasn’t impressed.

There is an old saying that price is information. Serious offers get considered and unserious ones are disregarded. There is no need to characterize the best ones as "super cool" or "awesome" or the bad ones as "embarrassing". I get that some people use those terms but from what I have seen, serious negotiators only do so to create leverage - not to shame someone post-transaction.

This is all on Katie who likely chose that language because they get embarrassed easily. Katie shouldn't project so much.

sezwho · Jan 22, 2024

DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
There is an old saying that price is information. Serious offers get considered and unserious ones are disregarded. There is no need to characterize the best ones as "super cool" or "awesome" or the bad ones as "embarrassing". I get that some people use those terms but from what I have seen, serious negotiators only do so to create leverage - not to shame someone post-transaction.

This is all on Katie who likely chose that language because they get embarrassed easily. Katie shouldn't project so much.

Fair enough, and for the record I’m not super concerned with Katie’s position or coffee preference. I would also agree there is no need to categorize something as embarrassing and that price is foundational information.

My thought is there are offers that represent you well, and offers that may make you look like a clown. The Yankees regularly circulate the former, and the Sox wish they could run away from the latter (Lester, X).

It comes up periodically here, and people bring their own biases of what contract negotiations like this really look like (some small number here actually know too!) but it’s a finite world of quite savvy FO folk and its pretty small. Bloom, by many accounts, escorted himself out of it by not representing himself very well.

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Jan 22, 2024

Cross posting my own thoughts from the "Throttle" thread as it might be better here.

Where did the idea that the Sox will, would, or really ever have just blow through the Luxury Tax to start a year (2024 or any year) ever originate. They rarely do.

FSG has owned the team for two decades, and have pretty much always adhered to a luxury tax budget. Somewhere along the line (and this was before Warner's Full Throttle comment) this alternate reality where they'd spend massive money going into a season became accepted, and I don't know where or why. They're never really done that.

I'm using Cots because it nicely lays out previous year's payrolls, if this is not a valid site, someone correct me.

If formatting doesn't come out well, I have year, Luxury Tax Threshold, Sox budget to start the year (the ** are for years that the payroll ended the season above the LTT threshold).

2003 - LTT = $117m; RSP = $99.9M; (Below 1)
2004 - $120.5; $127.2 (Above 1)**
2005 - $128M; $123.5 (Below 2)
2006 - $136.5; $120.1 (Below 3)**
2007 - $148m; $133.3 (Below 4)**
2008 - $155m; $133.4m (Below 5)
2009 - $162m; $121m (Below 6)
2010 - $170m; $168.1m (Below 7)**
2011 - $178m; $163.8m (Below 8)
2012 - $178m; $175.3m (Below 9)
2013 - $178m; $154.5m (Below 10)
2014 - $189m; $156.4m (Below 11)
2015 - $189m; $184.3m (Below 12)
2016 - $189m; $197.9m (Above 2)**
2017 - $195m; $197m (Above 3)
2018 - $197m; $233.7m (Above 4)**
2019 - $206m; $236.2m (Above 5)**
2020 - Not sure how to properly calculate that because of the prorated numbers, we all know they were (in)famously at this point below, however - Below 13.
2021 - $210m; $180.2m (Below 14)
2022 - $230m; $206.6m (Below 15)
2023 - $233m; $187.2m (Below 16)

So in the past 20 seasons, they've started the season below the luxury tax limit 16 times, above it 5 (every season with DDski and 2004).

Further, over the past 20 seasons, they've finished the year below the Luxury Tax Threshold 13 times, above the luxury tax limit 7 times (including 3 of the 4 seasons with DDski).

Generally speaking, they start they year below it 80% of the time, and finish below it 65% of the time. So again, where on Earth did this idea that they'd just blow through it (or that they don't have a pretty general budget of starting the year below the Luxury Tax Threshold) even come from?

Luxury Tax Thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_luxury_tax
Sox Payrolls https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/

DeJesus Built My Hotrod · Jan 22, 2024

sezwho said:
Fair enough, and for the record I’m not super concerned with Katie’s position or coffee preference. I would also agree there is no need to categorize something as embarrassing and that price is foundational information.

My thought is there are offers that represent you well, and offers that may make you look like a clown. The Yankees regularly circulate the former, and the Sox wish they could run away from the latter (Lester, X).

It comes up periodically here, and people bring their own biases of what contract negotiations like this really look like (some small number here actually know too!) but it’s a finite world of quite savvy FO folk and its pretty small. Bloom, by many accounts, escorted himself out of it by not representing himself very well.

In my experience, you are correct that if over time a party is consistently below market they will develop a reputation and all that entails. That said, from a transactional perspective my sense is that the really shrewd folks will never try to shame even the low-ball counterparts because they may prove useful down the line - even the cheap will pay up from time to time or maybe you will need to come to their level at some point.

sezwho · Jan 22, 2024

DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
In my experience, you are correct that if over time a party is consistently below market they will develop a reputation and all that entails. That said, from a transactional perspective my sense is that the really shrewd folks will never try to shame even the low-ball counterparts because they may prove useful down the line - even the cheap will pay up from time to time or maybe you will need to come to their level at some point.

This is exactly how I would attempt to operate, so that tracks for me. I spent a couple years on a bond desk (awesome experience even as a peon) and there were definitely people that went right to the head trader, and callers that only got through if the ‘real folk’ weren’t interested. There was a clear buyer hierarchy, and for the most Sr folks saying no and managing time is the only way they can get to tomorrow.

Kliq · Jan 22, 2024

I don't like or dislike the team any less relative to how much ownership spends. The team transcends ownership, coaches, players, etc. so it's hard to say I dislike the team because the owners have cheapened out.

The issue I have currently with the lack of spending is the way FSG has managed the entire organization, especially Fenway Park, in terms of cost. I'm okay for paying for the most expensive tickets in baseball, the most expensive parking, the most expensive hot dog and the most expensive beer, if that translates to having one of the very highest payrolls in baseball. In the last few years that hasn't been the case, yet the regular fan still is getting squeezed for every cent they have when they step into Fenway.

The smaller market teams don't spend but at least that is somewhat reflected in the games being accessible to everyone. You will see a Twins game and they have an ad behind homeplate that will be like "Family four pack of tickets, $50" and that price wouldn't even get you a decent parking spot near Fenway. Ticket prices have gone up despite payroll going down--the team balked at paying the best homegrown player in 50 years and still had the nerve to ask for more of my money the following season.

I still like Fenway, but it's a tourist trap. And it's the frustrating thing where you get the sense ownership knows they can pack Fenway whether or not the team is good because they can count on people from out-of-town filling in the gaps. The comments over the weekend were just perfect; when asked about high prices and Werner says "We are selling the Fenway Experience" like...fuck you dude. The Fenway Experience has to be worth more than paying a fortune to go the ballpark and watch a bunch of unrecognizable platoon players that can't field and a bevy of middling relief pitchers because the team doesn't have a reliable starter.

Auger34 · Jan 22, 2024

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:
Cross posting my own thoughts from the "Throttle" thread as it might be better here.

Where did the idea that the Sox will, would, or really ever have just blow through the Luxury Tax to start a year (2024 or any year) ever originate. They rarely do.

FSG has owned the team for two decades, and have pretty much always adhered to a luxury tax budget. Somewhere along the line (and this was before Warner's Full Throttle comment) this alternate reality where they'd spend massive money going into a season became accepted, and I don't know where or why. They're never really done that.

I'm using Cots because it nicely lays out previous year's payrolls, if this is not a valid site, someone correct me.

If formatting doesn't come out well, I have year, Luxury Tax Threshold, Sox budget to start the year (the ** are for years that the payroll ended the season above the LTT threshold).

2003 - LTT = $117m; RSP = $99.9M; (Below 1)
2004 - $120.5; $127.2 (Above 1)**
2005 - $128M; $123.5 (Below 2)
2006 - $136.5; $120.1 (Below 3)**
2007 - $148m; $133.3 (Below 4)**
2008 - $155m; $133.4m (Below 5)
2009 - $162m; $121m (Below 6)
2010 - $170m; $168.1m (Below 7)**
2011 - $178m; $163.8m (Below 8)
2012 - $178m; $175.3m (Below 9)
2013 - $178m; $154.5m (Below 10)
2014 - $189m; $156.4m (Below 11)
2015 - $189m; $184.3m (Below 12)
2016 - $189m; $197.9m (Above 2)**
2017 - $195m; $197m (Above 3)
2018 - $197m; $233.7m (Above 4)**
2019 - $206m; $236.2m (Above 5)**
2020 - Not sure how to properly calculate that because of the prorated numbers, we all know they were (in)famously at this point below, however - Below 13.
2021 - $210m; $180.2m (Below 14)
2022 - $230m; $206.6m (Below 15)
2023 - $233m; $187.2m (Below 16)

So in the past 20 seasons, they've started the season below the luxury tax limit 16 times, above it 5 (every season with DDski and 2004).

Further, over the past 20 seasons, they've finished the year below the Luxury Tax Threshold 13 times, above the luxury tax limit 7 times (including 3 of the 4 seasons with DDski).

Generally speaking, they start they year below it 80% of the time, and finish below it 65% of the time. So again, where on Earth did this idea that they'd just blow through it (or that they don't have a pretty general budget of starting the year below the Luxury Tax Threshold) even come from?

Luxury Tax Thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_luxury_tax
Sox Payrolls https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/

I responded to this post in the other thread too with more detail, showing the payroll ranks each year.

Before last year, FSG has been in the top 6 of MLB payrolls every year that they've owned the team.

I think that people assumed that they would get back up into that region after dipping below the luxury tax this year

Big Papi's Mango Salsa · Jan 22, 2024

Auger34 said:
I responded to this post in the other thread too with more detail, showing the payroll ranks each year.

Before last year, FSG has been in the top 6 of MLB payrolls every year that they've owned the team.

I think that people assumed that they would get back up into that region after dipping below the luxury tax this year

Certainly plausible for people to think that (regarding the ranks). For me the luxury tax number has always been more telling, or I guess a better barometer is more like it.

I think they’ll continue to spend right around the $LTT in a given year. I think their “place” in MLB has very little bearing.

soxin6 · Jan 22, 2024

I don't think it is really about how much they spend, but there should not be a situation where they trade away a MVP player because of money and they should be willing to invest in free agents if the team hasn't been competitive. People accepted the lack of spending and somewhat accepted the trading of Mookie because it was said the team needed to rest their tax status. Now ownership says they expect to spend even less after 3 last place finishes in 4 seasons and that just isn't what any fanbase would want. Have we become spoiled? You bet and I would like to stay that way. I don't want to go into another couple of decades knowing it would take multiple miracles for the Sox to win the WS.

HfxBob · Jan 23, 2024

Big Papi's Mango Salsa said:
Certainly plausible for people to think that (regarding the ranks). For me the luxury tax number has always been more telling, or I guess a better barometer is more like it.

I think they’ll continue to spend right around the $LTT in a given year. I think their “place” in MLB has very little bearing.

Personally I think their spending relative to other teams has a ton of bearing on the discussion. Why have other teams clearly decided to blow past the luxury tax thresholds while the Red Sox continue to observe them like they are impenetrable barriers? One explanation is that the Sox owners are being the smart and prudent ones. The other explanation is not as attractive.

sezwho · Jan 23, 2024

HfxBob said:
Personally I think their spending relative to other teams has a ton of bearing on the discussion. Why have other teams clearly decided to blow past the luxury tax thresholds while the Red Sox continue to observe them like they are impenetrable barriers? One explanation is that the Sox owners are being the smart and prudent ones. The other explanation is not as attractive.

Assuming they don’t add as they’ve indicated, the only thing that I’m holding onto, and it’s admittedly thin gruel, is that they’ve spent manymany millions on development.

Like Bres had a $230m budget but spent 5m on the driveline guys, etc. and another 7m on infrastructure and new coaching development or whatever. In his mind, over the next couple years the progress made by the young players will outweigh the value of $12m for a Paxton-like.

AlNipper49 · Jan 23, 2024

BeantownIdaho said:
I was not sure where to put this, but here is a link to a recent Hernandez interview after the fact. But in terms of ownerships level of spending and the whole topic of what the offers have really been, I found this quote interesting:

"Boston had both of those positions covered in Teoscar Hernández, and the team was a finalist for Hernández's services for the 2024 season. But they made him an embarrassing offer that the big-spending Los Angeles Dodgers blew out of the water."

https://bosoxinjection.com/posts/dodgers-teoscar-hernandez-free-agent-red-sox-contract-offer-own-worst-enemy-01hmhgtzz578

This is written by an idiot, there is nothing embarrassing about a lowball offer. I’d be more embarrassed if I were the Dodgers ‘blowing’ a lowball offer ‘out of the water’. That doesn’t seem smart.

‘lowball’ is also a loaded phrase. I’ve lost bidding wars on houses before. We set prices for what it is worth and negotiate towards that number. If someone values it more than I, am dumb about price or I didn’t value it enough then that’s just how it works.

He shouldn’t be at the top of any Sox needs list when their pitching has these issues. What exactly is the problem with a low offer looking for bites? No other free agent is going to give a shit if they lowballed someone else.

How Much Does Ownership’s Level of Spending Affect Your Fandom ?

How Much Does Ownership’s Level of Spending Affect Your Fandom ?

A lot. If they want my money, they need to spend theirs, period.

Quite a bit, but I'll vent a bit and get over it

Not much really, it's out of my control and money doesn't guarantee anything

Not at all, I'm just here for the baseball, everybody should just shut up about it already.

It’s not my money and I’m still going to pay attention but it’d be nice if they were competitive.

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Experiencing Furry Panic

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Certain Class of Poster

Member

Member

New Member

blue devils forevah!

New Member

blue devils forevah!

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

blue devils forevah!

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

has trust issues

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

used to be tbb

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Huge Member