Do You Want John Henry To Sell The Red Sox?

I am certainly appreciative of what ownership did from the time they took over up through the last couple of years. I never really thought I would see a Sox championship in my lifetime and I saw 4. That is pretty cool. That would not have happened without current ownership and whatever it was they did/did not do during that time. That said... it's clear to me that their focus has shifted. They went from "let's put the best product possible on the field - whether through trades, investing in the farm, FA, whatever - and make money doing it" to "well, let's put out a product that *might* make the WC if everything breaks right, sell the fans on next year and continue to make money doing it". I highly suspect that other business ventures, particularly an NBA team in Vegas and Liverpool, took their interest away from the Sox and they became perfectly content to let the Sox print money for them. The calculated, probably correctly, that fans will still show up for a mediocre product and the "Fenway Experience" and any lost revenue would be covered by cost savings on the team.
Not that I am mad at this. It's their prerogative. I can be happy for what they did, but also walk away when I have perceived that their objectives have changed. I know everyone hates re-litigating it, but shipping Mookie to LA to not look like assholes when they ultimately refused to pay Mookie the next season in FA (and stapling Price to him for good measure) was a clear sign to me that ownership reached a point where economics mattered more than the team. Which, again, their choice, that's fine. But I am not enough of a baseball fan to follow ownership no matter what, and especially when they indicate where their priorities lie and those priorities are different from my own. Nothing since the Mookie trade has shown me they have any desire to do anything other than get money from this team, and that includes signing Devers and 2021, an outlier season where almost everything broke right.
So to answer the question - do I think they should sell? Yes. It's been fun, thanks for the memories, but they're interested in seeing other people, maybe I am too. What makes this question borderline impossible though is you don't know who the next owners are - for the people who want to sell, it's some rich local fan who wants to see the Sox win more than anything and has money to burn. For the ones who don't the next owners could be the next Loria or John Fisher. But at this point I am willing to take my chances.

astrozombie said:

I know everyone hates re-litigating it, but. . .

Click to expand...

You can contribute to not re-litigating it by: a) not misstating the facts, b) not willfully ignoring the context, and c) not doing both and then making an argument based off it.

They traded Adrian Gonzalez to LA to dump Beckett and Crawford - why not use that as the turning point for when economics mattered?

Rovin Romine said:

You can contribute to not re-litigating it by: a) not misstating the facts, b) not willfully ignoring the context, and c) not doing both and then making an argument based off it.

They traded Adrian Gonzalez to LA to dump Beckett and Crawford - why not use that as the turning point for when economics mattered?

Click to expand...

How about conditioning acquiring A-Rod on re-doing his deal to save money (which fortunately worked out for the best)? Or "lowballing" Nomar and then trying to trade him when he scoffed at the extension offer (which also ultimately worked out for the best)? Or deciding not to go one more year (or two) to ensure the best pitcher in franchise history would retire in a Red Sox uniform.

It's not like ownership has ever operated as if economics didn't matter, except for maybe the Dombrowski era which might be the aberration and yet has seemingly changed expectations for a significant portion of the fanbase.

I would say that my issue isn't operating as if economics don't matter. They certainly due and actions do have consequences, like losses in draft picks etc. when you get too crazy. I don't think anyone is advocating for or wants the penalties the Mets faced. But we also have to understand and accept the changing dynamics of the economics. Thresholds have increased and (some of) us fans just expect (seems like wrongly) that our payroll and expenditures would increase accordingly to the inflation of the CBT. The issue for the last couple seasons is that it hasn't. That is my frustration. In addition to not getting under the luxury tax in 2021, but that's spilt milk. It kind of feels like my dad when he complained that gas was a dime or a quarter back in the day (he was born in 1927). Starting pitchers cost more than they used to as does everything that walks out on to the diamond. Having a static budget that only gets broken on very special circumstances and expecting to be an upper echelon team will continue to get harder and harder. I don't disgree that this free agent class outside of Yamamoto was not worth breaking the bank. But some were worth more than we are willing to spend.

Rovin Romine said:

They traded Adrian Gonzalez to LA to dump Beckett and Crawford - why not use that as the turning point for when economics mattered?

Click to expand...

Those two trades had very little in common. The Gonzalez trade was a rare and fortunate opportunity to undo some expensive mistakes and re-load, and they reinvested the money immediately.

HfxBob said:

Those two trades had very little in common. The Gonzalez trade was a rare and fortunate opportunity to undo some expensive mistakes and re-load, and they reinvested the money immediately.

Click to expand...

So, you believe economics didn't matter in the Gonzalez trade? Because that was my point Bob.

Edit - and as a P.S. you make it sound like they promptly spent back up to their 2012 mark. They did not. https://legacy.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/

DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:

Most of this discussion about ownership and a sale seems to stem from the notion that its limiting their ability to field a competitive team going forward. I don't think this thread was started as a result of their one off decisions but I can't speak for others.

For me, its simply about their willingness and ability to spend and they feel constrained in that regard. If that's the case, I'd like to see what a new owner can do. I fully understand that a change of control may end up with a worse ownership group but I'd roll those dice.

Click to expand...

See the spending is secondary to me, it is the focus. You can focus on making the product the best you can and hope that the profits follow or you can focus on getting the most cash out of the product. The current regime is seems way more focus on the second.

The terrible communication including to but not limited to straight out lying to the customer base, the inability to change or adjust strategy, losing competitive edge, mismanaged budget, leadership being promoted without accountability - these are all the tell tale signs of company on the way out.

FSG is private equity superfund specializing in Sports and Marketing. The Red Sox are just a piece of their portfolio. Outside of being the namesake I am not even sure it is a primary asset anymore. The job is to extract value for the shareholders.

TomRicardo said:

See the spending is secondary to me, it is the focus. You can focus on making the product the best you can and hope that the profits follow or you can focus on getting the most cash out of the product. The current regime is seems way more focus on the second.

The terrible communication including to but not limited to straight out lying to the customer base, the inability to change or adjust strategy, losing competitive edge, mismanaged budget, leadership being promoted without accountability - these are all the tell tale signs of company on the way out.

FSG is private equity superfund specializing in Sports and Marketing. The Red Sox are just a piece of their portfolio. Outside of being the namesake I am not even sure it is a primary asset anymore. The job is to extract value for the shareholders.

Click to expand...

I think that's the crux of the problem. I've certainly been wishcasting a JH who is a lifelong baseball fan who would never fall into the trap of over-monetizing the RS experience. It seems a number of others have so done so too.

JH is I suspect a different beast. He is a financial wizard with limited soft skills. He likes baseball but he won't let that factor outweigh a lifetime on training in numbers. There is no overriding loyalty to the RS specifically as opposed to being one factor amongst an increasingly broad assortment of outlets. It's all returns and investment discipline.

As TR notes, there's been a strategic decision to create a sports-entertainment behemoth. That will lead to radically different choices as they specifically affect the RS in a specific instance. They don't care about fan feelings so long as the numbers are sustained.

But what do I know?

Lose Remerswaal said:

As I said before, in the part of my post you quoted but did not address, John Henry spent more time on his hedge funds than he did the Sox in the early years of ownership. Maybe he has shifted his attention to other FSG portfolio assets, but the Red Sox were never his sole concern.

Click to expand...

You’re correct, agreed. Just can’t help but feel we are less of the pie.

maybe I am clinging to the 2003/2004 feeling of, this mofo is all in.
Cheers!

I don’t understand why some of you want micro managing owners.
The best owners hire the right people and then get our of the way.

Sox Pride said:

I don’t understand why some of you want micro managing owners.
The best owners hire the right people and then get our of the way.

Click to expand...

And John Henry would seem to be the furthest thing from a "stay out of the way" guy.

Dave Dombrowski might say he's now working for a "stay out of the way" guy in Middleton.

But even a "stay out of the way" owner presumably has the final word on the budget and large, long-term contracts, so none of them can be completely out of the way..

mauf said:

If we assume ownership isn’t dumb and is charting a course to contention in 2025 or 2026, Cora’s 2023 evaluation should heavily weigh the development/performance of guys who figure to be part of that next contending team. By that standard, Cora did more good than bad in 2023. Casas and Bello developed nicely. Duran had a breakout year, though that might be a mirage. Devers and Yoshida had off years, but at least in Devers’ case he didn’t seem to get wrapped up in his own head. (I can’t speak to Yoshida because I’ve never seen him when things were going well to say if he was any different than that last year.)

Click to expand...

One thing that I've noticed with Raffy is that he'll get his numbers, but seems to go into prolonged slumps when he goes through defensive struggles. It's like he presses too hard offensively and falls into some bad habits while trying to make up for the defensive slumps with his bat.

mauf said:

If we assume ownership isn’t dumb and is charting a course to contention in 2025 or 2026, Cora’s 2023 evaluation should heavily weigh the development/performance of guys who figure to be part of that next contending team. By that standard, Cora did more good than bad in 2023. Casas and Bello developed nicely. Duran had a breakout year, though that might be a mirage. Devers and Yoshida had off years, but at least in Devers’ case he didn’t seem to get wrapped up in his own head. (I can’t speak to Yoshida because I’ve never seen him when things were going well to say if he was any different than that last year.)

Click to expand...

Well, some of those development issues (good or bad) are going to be grounded in the coaching, which Cora has ultimate responsibility for, but it does create a bit of a buffer in terms of evaluating him.

I think there's going to be a lot of stuff we're just not privy to. Neither Bello nor Casas came up and immediately caught fire. So are they really good players who were held back by something coaching/Cora did? Or are they really good players who were handled just right - perhaps something we don't know about was corrected or addressed or the like, which allowed them to progress as they did.

I think Duran is a clear positive though - he had issues and they suck with him, which paid off as he improved. For me, his absolute numerical upside isn't as important as the fact that they created an environment where they didn't have to jettison a potentially valuable player. (As many here, including myself probably, were calling for a couple of years ago.)