Do You Want John Henry To Sell The Red Sox?
- Thread starter McSweeny
- Start date
I think this is a totally fair point. Henry hasn't hesitated to cut the cord with those GMs. When you don't perform, regardless of past success, you're gone. (Some might argue even if you do perform you're gone.)
So why should fans look at him any differently? (Obviously there's a big difference in that all we can do is complain.)
You know it's not about that. For me it's about the direction they've taken since that last WS win, about the growing pile of sub-.500 seasons, about the revolving door of CBOs, about the bizarre messaging we're getting, et cetera.
Also, by the logic you're using, why does Henry fire Dombrowski after not winning the WS one year in a row? The answer of course is "because he could".
Last edited:
I answered no about John Henry selling the team, but there's a caveat. I don't care if he does the anti-Michael Stipe thing and finds his religion or is visited by the ghosts or Red Sox past, present and future; something has to change.
I think it's a good starting point to cite the Chris Sale contract as the point in Red Sox history where John Henry decided that he was through paying players their going rate (Devers excepted). From there the dominoes fell to where we are now and I'd like to know why. But Henry isn't going to conduct a face-to-face interview where he's going to allow himself to be asked these questions. Which I suppose you could argue is smart, if you do everything via email you can craft your answers and--most importantly--skip the questions that you don't want to answer. But if you look at owning a baseball team as a sort of a public trust, or at the very least a publicly traded company, Henry owes real answers to his paying customers.
That being said, it appeared that the Sox were turning the corner this past fall. Breslow was hired and said that the Sox were back in business. Werner, who is a bit of a boob but a boob who will normally stay close to the message, talked about full throttle. Then in January Werner's message changed. There were reports that Breslow felt that he wasn't given the right information during his interview about the Red Sox budget. Both men talked about the future and that's where optimism should shift. Then Sam Kennedy came out, stepped on a bunch of rakes, and said that the payroll was lowering this year in comparisson to last year.
Something shifted between November and January and I think it came from Henry. The owner was weirdly absent from Breslow's press conference. What makes me think it comes from the top is that if Werner was too exhuberent in his full throtle comment and needed to walk it back, why did it take him more than two months to do so? Why did Breslow say that they're open to trading anyone in the farm system and that he wasn't as tied to them as his predecessor was and then two months of non activity later did he start putting a ton of stock in TAM? I don't think that there's a conspiracy here but I do think that Henry wants to run the club the way that he wants to and made sure that everyone is in line.
At some point, all owners are going to "suck", in so much what they're attemtpting to get out of the franchise is completel different from what we, as fans, want. I get that. I also completely understand that the Boston Red Sox are a business and profits need to be generated. But at the same time, it's hard not to feel like a sucker when you're paying exhorbenent ticket prices to watch AAAA players. You feel foolish when you're paying $15 a beer and $6.25 for a hot dog and Tom Werner is telling you that Fenway is reasonably priced (if you're a college student). It really sucks when every person in the region knows that your starting pitching staff is swiss cheese, the one guy you signed didn't make through a month of Spring Training, there is a free agent still available and the silence from Jersey Ave. is deafening.
I've already made my peace that 2003-2018 John Henry is dead and that this new JHv2.0 is what we're stuck with. Is he the worst owner in the league? No. But is he a good owner for the Boston Red Sox and what they mean to this city? Also no. But Henry has decided that he's going to turn the Fenway area into a 365-day experience and has sunk a ton of cash into the area. He isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so I guess I better get used to how he's running the team now. Does that mean I'm going to stop raging against the machine? No, but I know that whatever angst I feel to Henry he literally does not give a fuck as long as I'm walking into his ballpark and giving him my wallet.
It just stinks that you can really love something so much and that thing shows nothing but apathy back. That's life of a sports fan during capitalism's downward spiral; it's a real Henry Hill situation: fuck you, pay me.
I think it's a good starting point to cite the Chris Sale contract as the point in Red Sox history where John Henry decided that he was through paying players their going rate (Devers excepted). From there the dominoes fell to where we are now and I'd like to know why. But Henry isn't going to conduct a face-to-face interview where he's going to allow himself to be asked these questions. Which I suppose you could argue is smart, if you do everything via email you can craft your answers and--most importantly--skip the questions that you don't want to answer. But if you look at owning a baseball team as a sort of a public trust, or at the very least a publicly traded company, Henry owes real answers to his paying customers.
That being said, it appeared that the Sox were turning the corner this past fall. Breslow was hired and said that the Sox were back in business. Werner, who is a bit of a boob but a boob who will normally stay close to the message, talked about full throttle. Then in January Werner's message changed. There were reports that Breslow felt that he wasn't given the right information during his interview about the Red Sox budget. Both men talked about the future and that's where optimism should shift. Then Sam Kennedy came out, stepped on a bunch of rakes, and said that the payroll was lowering this year in comparisson to last year.
Something shifted between November and January and I think it came from Henry. The owner was weirdly absent from Breslow's press conference. What makes me think it comes from the top is that if Werner was too exhuberent in his full throtle comment and needed to walk it back, why did it take him more than two months to do so? Why did Breslow say that they're open to trading anyone in the farm system and that he wasn't as tied to them as his predecessor was and then two months of non activity later did he start putting a ton of stock in TAM? I don't think that there's a conspiracy here but I do think that Henry wants to run the club the way that he wants to and made sure that everyone is in line.
At some point, all owners are going to "suck", in so much what they're attemtpting to get out of the franchise is completel different from what we, as fans, want. I get that. I also completely understand that the Boston Red Sox are a business and profits need to be generated. But at the same time, it's hard not to feel like a sucker when you're paying exhorbenent ticket prices to watch AAAA players. You feel foolish when you're paying $15 a beer and $6.25 for a hot dog and Tom Werner is telling you that Fenway is reasonably priced (if you're a college student). It really sucks when every person in the region knows that your starting pitching staff is swiss cheese, the one guy you signed didn't make through a month of Spring Training, there is a free agent still available and the silence from Jersey Ave. is deafening.
I've already made my peace that 2003-2018 John Henry is dead and that this new JHv2.0 is what we're stuck with. Is he the worst owner in the league? No. But is he a good owner for the Boston Red Sox and what they mean to this city? Also no. But Henry has decided that he's going to turn the Fenway area into a 365-day experience and has sunk a ton of cash into the area. He isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so I guess I better get used to how he's running the team now. Does that mean I'm going to stop raging against the machine? No, but I know that whatever angst I feel to Henry he literally does not give a fuck as long as I'm walking into his ballpark and giving him my wallet.
It just stinks that you can really love something so much and that thing shows nothing but apathy back. That's life of a sports fan during capitalism's downward spiral; it's a real Henry Hill situation: fuck you, pay me.
As posted upthread I'm not calling for Henry to sell the team, but let me play Devil's advocate for one moment. Your post here is something that I have subscribed to, but I'm starting to think that the investment and development surrounding Fenway (not the park itself) might not have any bearing at all as to a decision to not sell the team. In fact it could be in preparation to sell. If put on the market the team, the park and NESN (assuming that might be package offered) would command a huge ask and likely appeal to a very limited field of suitors. Might the inclusion of all of those other holdings around the park push the price out of reach or limit interest in a potential purchase? Suppose for a moment that you are Henry. You know that there is a loyal fan base that follows the team, not the owner. In a sense you are selling that fan base along with the package. That same fan base will spill over into all of your non baseball ventures surrounding the area. Your shops, restaurants, music venues and other businesses. The value of the team, park and NSEN package alone will provide for a very handsome profit versus the investment made when Henry and Co. purchased the franchise. If he chose to, Henry could move past the business of baseball, see an incredible return on investment and continue to develop and profit from having the Red Sox and Fenway Park smack dab in the middle of everything he's surrounding the park with.
No.
New owners is almost every sport seem to be the "LOOK AT THIS GIANT SET OF TESTICLES I HAVE ON MY GIANT DESK IN MY GIANT OFFICE IN MY GIANT STADIUM THAT THE TAXPAYERS BUILT FOR ME" kind of 20th century dickwad billionaire publicity whores that make me want to punch them in their real testicles.
I think that, in general, people have engrafted their frustrations from the last 5 years or so onto Henry and ascribing a set of beliefs, principles, and emotions onto him without any real evidence go base it on. That's fair, I suppose, since he's the invisible man and he leaves people no choice but to invent his personal traits. But, IMO, he's just as likely crying into his oatmeal and breaking shit after a loss as he is counting the gate receipts like some sort of Montgomery Burns, even though most people seem to think that he's only doing the latter.
OTOH--If he went on TV, and wept uncontrollably about the current state of the team and said, Jerry Jones like, "What's goin' on 'round here is unacceptable," he'd still catch shit because last place. It's all about the results. In context, 6 (or 5+Covid) seasons with one playoff appearance just isn't that bad.
tl;dr. I'm in the "devil you know" camp.
New owners is almost every sport seem to be the "LOOK AT THIS GIANT SET OF TESTICLES I HAVE ON MY GIANT DESK IN MY GIANT OFFICE IN MY GIANT STADIUM THAT THE TAXPAYERS BUILT FOR ME" kind of 20th century dickwad billionaire publicity whores that make me want to punch them in their real testicles.
I think that, in general, people have engrafted their frustrations from the last 5 years or so onto Henry and ascribing a set of beliefs, principles, and emotions onto him without any real evidence go base it on. That's fair, I suppose, since he's the invisible man and he leaves people no choice but to invent his personal traits. But, IMO, he's just as likely crying into his oatmeal and breaking shit after a loss as he is counting the gate receipts like some sort of Montgomery Burns, even though most people seem to think that he's only doing the latter.
OTOH--If he went on TV, and wept uncontrollably about the current state of the team and said, Jerry Jones like, "What's goin' on 'round here is unacceptable," he'd still catch shit because last place. It's all about the results. In context, 6 (or 5+Covid) seasons with one playoff appearance just isn't that bad.
tl;dr. I'm in the "devil you know" camp.
I sometimes wonder if Henry would have moved on from Dave Dombrowski in 2019 if the Red Sox had played like a team that won 108 games the previous year.
Cora simply failed to properly prepare the team that year, allowing them a lackadaisical Spring Training which resulted in a slow start from which they never fully recovered. They were 9-15 on April 23. Though they picked it up somewhat after that, they never really got going, finishing with just 84 wins — a drop of 24 from 2018.
While no one expected them to win 108 games a second year in a row, they were still basically the same team that dominated in 2018. Injuries to the pitching staff certainly held them back. But the core group of Betts, Bogaerts, Benintendi, JD Martinez, Devers was still intact. Even Jackie Bradley and Brock Holt were still around. Maybe 95-98 wins -- at least 93! -- would have been a reasonable expectation. Dombrowksi was fired Sept. 8, when the team was 76-67, 17 1/2 games out of first place and 9 out of a WC spot. If they had played the way they should have that year, would Dombrowski have been fired? And if he wasn't fired then, what would the Red Sox look like now?
I obviously don't know the answer, but it's an interesting thought experiment. Would we be even thinking about Henry selling the team?
Cora simply failed to properly prepare the team that year, allowing them a lackadaisical Spring Training which resulted in a slow start from which they never fully recovered. They were 9-15 on April 23. Though they picked it up somewhat after that, they never really got going, finishing with just 84 wins — a drop of 24 from 2018.
While no one expected them to win 108 games a second year in a row, they were still basically the same team that dominated in 2018. Injuries to the pitching staff certainly held them back. But the core group of Betts, Bogaerts, Benintendi, JD Martinez, Devers was still intact. Even Jackie Bradley and Brock Holt were still around. Maybe 95-98 wins -- at least 93! -- would have been a reasonable expectation. Dombrowksi was fired Sept. 8, when the team was 76-67, 17 1/2 games out of first place and 9 out of a WC spot. If they had played the way they should have that year, would Dombrowski have been fired? And if he wasn't fired then, what would the Red Sox look like now?
I obviously don't know the answer, but it's an interesting thought experiment. Would we be even thinking about Henry selling the team?
It's a hell of a lot less laughable than people calling the Sox a 100 loss team, or any number of comments I've rolled my eyes at and strolled on by.
Anyway, my answer is no. Hell no.
This franchise went 86 years without a title, and in 20 years we got four. The entire game and business of baseball is changing, and the Sox are far from the only team that is necessarily adjusting its approach. They also have a payroll right now north of a fifth of a billion dollars. The assumption that they won't spend higher when they see value doesn't really jibe with me, either. If Yamamoto fell in love with Boston, they would have paid him. Oh, and he's 0-1 with and 8.38 ERA, with a WHIP of 1.97 this spring. It'd be a lot of fun around here if he was putting that up for the Sox at the Fort.....
And they certainly aren't the only team that has passed on paying premium money for good but not great players this offseason. They have brought in a CBO who brings a lot to the table and has shown vision and creativity in the brief time he's been here, brought back Theo Epstein as an advisor, and completely overhauled their pitching program. It may not look like what a lot of people want, which is to win right now, but IMO no one can credibly say they haven't invested in, or made a commitment to, the future. If it weren't for the absolute debacle of communication that came from the Werner, Kennedy et al, I think folks wouldn't be so riled. Hopefully they improve on their messaging, and quick.
The lineup looks solid, and defense will be better. They also have several exciting young players, who have been an absolute joy to watch so far this spring. The prospects game yesterday was fucking awesome. It prompted one poster who certainly can't be described as an eternal optimist to post "We gotta wear shades!".
They are where they are right now, and I don't see anyone denying that it's been a rough stretch, but the signs of good things to come are there if people are paying attention and bothering to look. I'd love them to be closer this year, but I'm OK with the direction, and looking at any success/playoff run this year as a bonus. And I certainly haven't ruled out that it can happen, as so many have.
I get it, the last five years have been tough. People are welcome to their opinion, but when I see people asking if others "are serious" about something, I can think of a hundred posts I could reply to with that response. We all see things through our own lens, but success is rarely consistent, never mind constant. It's always cycles, and in the last 20 years those cycles have been pretty, pretty, pretty good to Red Sox fans. I will acknowledge the lows have been very low, but IMO the payoffs were well worth it. If there is one thing I'd like to see for sure, though, it's a higher bottom in down years, if only for entertainment's sake.
And as an aside, it still blows my mind that people completely overlook or ignore the '21 run when talking about the abyss of the past 5 years, which also happened to have a global pandemic in the middle of them, as if it never happened. That was one of the most enjoyable non-championship runs I've ever seen, at a time that I needed it more than I could ever describe. It was absolutely awesome. And it happened less than 21/2 years ago. We really haven't been wandering in the desert all that long.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, nor will I take any time to argue my thoughts further, at least right now.
For me, it's time for baseball. YMMV.
Last edited:
Yup. The criticism of Henry started immediately. He was a Cardinals fan and in Boston to make a buck. Even in the thick of 4 titles in 15 years, it persisted. Even as he sunk money into Fenway, the Kenmore area and even Boston, it persisted.
Lately the damnation has come down to three things, all spending issues:
1. He didn't shell out to keep Betts - Ignores that Betts simply didn't want to live in Boston (a complicated, uncomfortable situation that we all know exists)
2. He didn't shell out to keep Xander - ignores that he shelled out a $300 MM deal for Devers
3. He appears to have a hard spending cap this year, well below the tax threshold - I'll give you this. But it's one year and they are further behind in their rebuild/transformation than they hoped/thought (hence Chiam dumped, leading to your perceived CBO "churn").
I say let them finish the model shift (how many teams have done/are doing this? And it takes years) and then see what the budget is. In the meantime, thanks John for the titles (hell, I would have taken just 1) and for the courage to redefine the team's operating model in an unforgiving environment.
Nothing happened to Sox ownership. They have consistently been uncomfortable spending above the first tax threshold and have only done it when they felt they were serious WS contenders or were in payroll hell with bad contracts signed during those windows. It happened that they were WS contenders often since Henry bought the team because Henry and Theo brought the org into the 21st century but the rest of the league has caught up and they don't have an analytical edge anymore. The Sox financial restraints are not the result of cheap ownership, they are mostly self-inflicted wounds, player development stumbled which has not provided enough cheap quality players, particularly pitchers and when they have splurged they have either missed badly like in the cases of Chris Sale and Trevor Story, or when they have actually done well with their cheaper but still expensive targets they have been so risk-averse they only got 1 good year out of them. Simultaneously many teams are spending much more which has resulted in salary demands from players exploding.
The Sox FO is paralyzed. They are afraid of making a mistake on a player that they are not incredibly high on that will cost them another 5 years and when I believe they do target a player they adore like Ohtani or Yamamoto the price tag is almost double what they anticipate. Would a different owner improve this? I don't think so, I think that owner will still have a limit because the Sox play in a park with a small capacity, and it likely just means we roll the dice with a mediocre player demanding big money and then we are at their new higher limit with all of the penalties of being above the tax threshold.
The Henry era has been a dream come true, but I voted YES.
I suspect the actual cash flow from pro sports is less attractive than we think, and you want an owner who views the team as a toy, not a business. We’ve gone from being owned by Werner and Henry to a team owned by FSG. It’s a business, and they have several other assets and, presumably, a goal to drive profits for their stakeholders. We’re better off with some deep-pocketed owner who wants to win.
I suspect the actual cash flow from pro sports is less attractive than we think, and you want an owner who views the team as a toy, not a business. We’ve gone from being owned by Werner and Henry to a team owned by FSG. It’s a business, and they have several other assets and, presumably, a goal to drive profits for their stakeholders. We’re better off with some deep-pocketed owner who wants to win.
No. To this observer nothing has changed regarding the organization’s will, intent, and desire to win.
They have made and continue to make some very, very bad decisions. Since 2019 they have tried to forecast successful market strategies and failed, repeatedly. Boo for that. Two thumbs down!
They have also had bad injury luck, a number of key players have produced at the low end of the range of potential outcomes, and this disappointing offseason is happening in the shadow of an embarrassing, inexplicable collapse last September. Shit happens.
I believe they are still trying to win and are operating in good faith. Eventually they will push the right buttons off the field, and fortune will favor the team on the field.
They have made and continue to make some very, very bad decisions. Since 2019 they have tried to forecast successful market strategies and failed, repeatedly. Boo for that. Two thumbs down!
They have also had bad injury luck, a number of key players have produced at the low end of the range of potential outcomes, and this disappointing offseason is happening in the shadow of an embarrassing, inexplicable collapse last September. Shit happens.
I believe they are still trying to win and are operating in good faith. Eventually they will push the right buttons off the field, and fortune will favor the team on the field.
I went with No. FSG tried something with Bloom. I didn't work out. They're trying something with Breslow, let's see how that pans out. So far, it seems like an emphasis on cheap, and hopefully, quality pitching which would be something that this organization has been sorely lacking.
Also, this franchise is worth BILLIONS. There are only so many prospective suitors that could buy the Sox and not carry a considerable debt service, which could force the new ownership to be more frugal. Granted, the current ownership isn't putting all the cash into this that they could, but they have the option to if they so choose. A different ownership may not have that choice.
Also, this franchise is worth BILLIONS. There are only so many prospective suitors that could buy the Sox and not carry a considerable debt service, which could force the new ownership to be more frugal. Granted, the current ownership isn't putting all the cash into this that they could, but they have the option to if they so choose. A different ownership may not have that choice.
"Perceived churn"? We've had 5 CBOs since 2011. We can debate which ones left of their own volition, but that's a fact.
I hate to rehash this again, but Betts has said repeatedly that he was open to staying in Boston. He was even looking for a new house in the area. Other players have reported that Betts was willing to stay in Boston. It's just not true that Betts knew he didn't want to stay and was on his way out no matter what. I'm a little too busy to produce quotes on this right now, but if you'd like me to, I can do that pretty soon when I get some open space in my schedule.
I think there were two horrendous decisions the organization made, the first Henry likely had nothing to do with you - extending Sale; and the second he likely did influence - not extending Betts. Though the two are related in obvious ways. Those two decisions took the organization off the rails in a way. Meanwhile, Xander was a more complicated case, and Devers was the last homegrown star standing, and they kind of had to extend him (though he's the least valuable of the three great homegrown guys).
I fully agree with John Marzano Olympic Hero above. There has been a general organizational shift, that then accelerated between the fall and the winter, in a way that has lead to the organization contradicting itself, not making what feel like obvious match-up signings (Montgomery), and falsely acting like it has to tighten its purse strings. It is conjecture - but plausible conjecture - that Henry is the source of that change. Henry is the source of the rest of the organizational team thinking it's full throttle, and then doing an about face. Who knows the motive - if he's milking the Sox to feed other ventures, and whatever the fuck it is, but he's in a snit, perhaps even mercurial behind the scenes, and it seems like everybody has to dance around him. And it feels dysfunctional.
I depart from John Marzano, though, in saying, if this is the way it is now, yes, I would like him to sell the team. I'm eternally grateful for the four WS championships. How delightful that was. Though if Henry were running the team in 2003 the way he is in 2024, they would never have happened. And I don't see another one for a long while, if this is the approach. He's disengaged, for whatever reason.
I keep holding out hope that other folks who've suggested, "just wait, as soon as the homegrown guys are ripe, the team will strike, and be more aggressive," are right. I'm skeptical honestly, that that's the team's long term stance (and let's see if the "inevitable" ripening happens), but part of me wants to believe that. So, if I suddenly had the power to fire Henry myself, I'd likely want to see what he does over the next two years (thereby kicking this can we've been kicking again and again). If it's more of the same, then yeah, give way to a group that will have the hunger you had in 2003.
Last edited:
Unless the new ownership group is led by Theo, I'm still a hard "no." Yes, the team's not felt properly cared for lately, the spending cap is frustrating (especially since we don't know if it's temporary or permanent), ticket prices are silly, and the group often seems more excited about other assets than the Sox. But looking across sports ownership it's easy to see how much worse it can be.
In addition, the case that he didn't want to stay would need to be bolstered by documented numbers on their best offer to him, and that info just doesn't exist.
I don’t want him to sell but what the hell is the plan here? They haven’t signed a decent starting pitcher in years, they spend minimal draft capital on pitchers, and they don’t trade for decent starting pitchers and we wonder why the starting pitching is awful. You cannot win without starting pitching and they seem not to have any answers on how to get it.
Why would they pay a premium (trade or FA) for high end starting pitching during a rebuild?
So the plan is not to do anything to improve the starting pitching in any way? The biggest part of this rebuild needs to be the pitching staff.
Breslow has already done a great job in stocking future pitching and reworking the development team. The wheels are turning.
But buying FA pitching is always a huge risk; you're usually overpaying in years for the initial early 30s period of control and crossing your fingers that an injury doesn't happen early on. Doing that preemptively when you know you won't have a good team to put behind them for the decent part of the contract is malpractice.
But buying FA pitching is always a huge risk; you're usually overpaying in years for the initial early 30s period of control and crossing your fingers that an injury doesn't happen early on. Doing that preemptively when you know you won't have a good team to put behind them for the decent part of the contract is malpractice.
You know the goal is for the Boston Red Sox to win, right? This starting staff is poor even with Lucas Giolito.
Improving the team in areas where they were subpar the year before is usually a good start. And rebuild or not, don’t you want the 2024 Red Sox to be better than the 2023 team?
Furthermore a rebuild doesn’t just start with rookies. Look at the 2004 team, they started with getting Wakefield in 95, Pedro in 98, Lowe in 97, etc.
As of now, no.
But I wonder given the recent portfolio additions to FSG with perhaps superior growth potential than the Sox, (soccer/golf are more global) together with what appears to be less financially aggressive moves with the Sox since '19, whether the Sox have become a cash cow to help nurture FSG's preferred projects. They are no longer the sole choice for resource allocation.
But I wonder given the recent portfolio additions to FSG with perhaps superior growth potential than the Sox, (soccer/golf are more global) together with what appears to be less financially aggressive moves with the Sox since '19, whether the Sox have become a cash cow to help nurture FSG's preferred projects. They are no longer the sole choice for resource allocation.
Highly debatable.
We've had 3 World Series in a row featuring teams that won less than 90 games.
The 2024 Red Sox as constituted are projected to win around 80. A couple of strong additions could have made that number around 85 and given the team a good shot at getting into the playoff crapshoot.
There's really no excuse for not trying to make the playoffs in 2024.
It's kind of crazy how much a lot of people are overlooking or downplaying the crapshoot factor that now exists, with -90 win teams in the WS, and the 100+ win Dodgers watching on TV the last 3 years.
Nearly every team is “projected” to win around 80 games, though, if you look at fangraphs. 24 teams between 76-86 wins! Fwiw, 11 teams finished within that range a year ago.
Sure, not saying the published projections are reliable, but there's no alternative that's reliable either. And yet a lot of fans are going with gut feelings that we're just not good enough to be worth spending on to try to make the playoffs.
I’d say the Vegas W/L totals look a little more realistic and don’t have 75% of teams clustered in the middle.
https://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/win-totals/
https://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/win-totals/
Thank you.It's a hell of a lot less laughable than people calling the Sox a 100 loss team, or any number of comments I've rolled my eyes at and strolled on by.
Anyway, my answer is no. Hell no.
This franchise went 86 years without a title, and in 20 years we got four. The entire game and business of baseball is changing, and the Sox are far from the only team that is necessarily adjusting its approach. They also have a payroll right now north of a fifth of a billion dollars. The assumption that they won't spend higher when they see value doesn't really jibe with me, either. If Yamamoto fell in love with Boston, they would have paid him. Oh, and he's 0-1 with and 8.38 ERA, with a WHIP of 1.97 this spring. It'd be a lot of fun around here if he was putting that up for the Sox at the Fort.....
And they certainly aren't the only team that has passed on paying premium money for good but not great players this offseason. They have brought in a CBO who brings a lot to the table and has shown vision and creativity in the brief time he's been here, brought back Theo Epstein as an advisor, and completely overhauled their pitching program. It may not look like what a lot of people want, which is to win right now, but IMO no one can credibly say they haven't invested in, or made a commitment to, the future. If it weren't for the absolute debacle of communication that came from the Werner, Kennedy et al, I think folks wouldn't be so riled. Hopefully they improve on their messaging, and quick.
The lineup looks solid, and defense will be better. They also have several exciting young players, who have been an absolute joy to watch so far this spring. The prospects game yesterday was fucking awesome. It prompted one poster who certainly can't be described as an eternal optimist to post "We gotta wear shades!".
They are where they are right now, and I don't see anyone denying that it's been a rough stretch, but the signs of good things to come are there if people are paying attention and bothering to look. I'd love them to be closer this year, but I'm OK with the direction, and looking at any success/playoff run this year as a bonus. And I certainly haven't ruled out that it can happen, as so many have.
I get it, the last five years have been tough. People are welcome to their opinion, but when I see people asking if others "are serious" about something, I can think of a hundred posts I could reply to with that response. We all see things through our own lens, but success is rarely consistent, never mind constant. It's always cycles, and in the last 20 years those cycles have been pretty, pretty, pretty good to Red Sox fans. I will acknowledge the lows have been very low, but IMO the payoffs were well worth it. If there is one thing I'd like to see for sure, though, it's a higher bottom in down years, if only for entertainment's sake.
And as an aside, it still blows my mind that people completely overlook or ignore the '21 run when talking about the abyss of the past 5 years, which also happened to have a global pandemic in the middle of them, as if it never happened. That was one of the most enjoyable non-championship runs I've ever seen, at a time that I needed it more than I could ever describe. It was absolutely awesome. And it happened less than 21/2 years ago. We really haven't been wandering in the desert all that long.
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, nor will I take any time to argue my thoughts further, at least right now.
For me, it's time for baseball. YMMV.
I would agree. But I'd also suggest that as good as the Vegas guys are, there has to be an error margin of something like 10% on either side. Which would put the Red Sox in a range of about 70 (if all goes crappy) to 85 (if all goes well). Smart money says the current Sox miss the playoffs, I get that. But if they had done more this offseason that could be different.
Lots of variables such as who, length of contract and how long a projected rebuild might take, but IMO the pitching staff has to be part of the rebuild process.
They got Wake for his age 28 season after being terrible.
They got Lowe in his age 24 season after being terrible.
They got Pedro for his age 26 season.
Then 9/7/6 years later they won it all, after all those guys were past their primes. If they'd been any older they probably wouldn't have been on the team by that point. By that metric, isn't it too early to write the book on any acquisitions from the Bloom/Breslow era?
I always want them to be better. I just don't think committing lots of years and money to starters in their 30s is the right move in every situation, even if it could improve the team in the near term. Same with trading big assets for a year or two of control of a Burnes or Cease. The Price and Sale acquisitions made sense because of what the rest of the team and our window looked like in 16-17. I think we're progressing back to a similar point, and I thought/think it made sense to go after Montgomery now. But I also say it would have been nuts to try to play at the top of the market for old guys before this year.
Obviously the last 2 and most of the 2007 credit should be given to the current ownership, but it’s not really fair to the JYT/Harrington/Duke team for saying Henry brought 4 titles. Henry had nothing to do with bringing Manny, Pedro, Lowe, Tek, Wake, and Damon here. And it was Pedro who recommended Ortiz to Theo iirc. Credit of course must be given for Millar, Mueller, Foulke. arroyo, and G38 and for moves around the margin.
I just don’t think saying “4” is fair to previous ownership.
That said, Theo is a genius and Lucchino was a genius on hiring him at every place he went, and ownership deserves creditnfor hiring LL as Pres/CEO.
There’s a bit of Kraft in this, they made a great hire for the overseer but there was unreplicable luck involved.
I just don’t think saying “4” is fair to previous ownership.
That said, Theo is a genius and Lucchino was a genius on hiring him at every place he went, and ownership deserves creditnfor hiring LL as Pres/CEO.
There’s a bit of Kraft in this, they made a great hire for the overseer but there was unreplicable luck involved.
An objective analysis of the Red Sox trajectory under Henry's ownership would suggest he's been as good as certain key people around him or working for him-Lucchino, Epstein and Dombrowski. Your point is valid as well.
In fairness the team has done some very good stuff lately. Breslow may be an excellent hire, also Bailey and the rest of the pitching guys they've brought on. The Bello extension was very well done. The signings of Fulmer and Hendriks should pay off. The future is definitely looking up.
I'm perfectly fine saying that the Henry/Warner ownership group brought 4 titles to Boston. 2004 was the third season under this group's stewardship. They put a front office structure in place that was smart enough not to screw up what was already in placed while adding the remaining pieces need to win a championship. One of those FO hires was Theo Epstein who played a big role in the hiring of Terry Francona.
Yep.
They bought the club, they spent their own money and grew it and elevated it into a serious contender for a couple of decades (while saving Fenway to boot). They got 4 WS titles, blew away the curse, and enabled the club to stick it in the Yanks' eye.
Now, they're having a tight year after a bad luck year, and people think they're fucking devils worthy of writing epic psychological wish-casting studies on. Do we want them to sell the team? Get a grip.
Yeah, honestly, it's a stupid fucking question.
The last twenty-odd years have been the single greatest time to be a Boston sports fan since fucking ever. A huge part of that is the four World Championships won by the Boston Red Sox under the current ownership. The previous regime contributed significantly to the first one, so let's give the current crew credit for three and a half championships.
Does that mean we should stick with them even if they pare payroll to the bone and don't even try to be competitive? Well yes, frankly it does, but that's not happening and you can't fucking twist reality to pretend it is.
It is completely obvious what the plan is. It's to build a talent pipeline like the Rays have, but with more financial might, the Sox can keep players around longer and, in general, have a fuckton more room for error than the Rays ever could. Avoiding high-ticket free agent contracts is good policy. It obviously takes time to build that pipeline after it's been decimated by Dave Dombrowski and his standard operating procedure.
Selling out the farm to win a World Series isn't my preferred strategy, but it's not an unreasonable one. They did it, and it resulted in the single greatest season in franchise history. It takes time to rebuild after that. The rebuilding effort is starting to show fruit and comes at a time when ALL of the other four teams in the division are at relative highs in their competitive cycles. It's harder to win the AL East now than it has been probably at any time since the inception of the current alignment, and possibly since division play began.
A lot of Red Sox fans have become the same whiny, entitled shitfuckers Yankee fans have been for our whole goddamn lives and it's both disgusting and embarrassing.
This team is a decent team. It's probably going to finish somewhere near the middle of the pack and all we can hope for is to finish at the top of the middle and have a chance at the playoffs.
This team is also probably going to be a better team at the end of the season than at the beginning, a better team at the start of 2025 than at the end of 2024, and a better team at the end of 2025 than at the beginning.
The goal is to win the World Series as many times as possible before we die. This team is doing that, so if you can pardon the phraseology, I'm gonna ask you all to stop being pussies, gird up your loins, and let's fucking go.
Or even worse, a Bob Nutting (Pirates)/John Fisher (A's)/Bruce Sherman (Marlins). At least McCourt and Moreno spent money and Angelos at least put money into the farm. The guys I mentioned are cheap all the way around.
The mystique and aura factor is off the charts, and exists comfortably along wish-casting GMing. Lone binky-players can single-handedly save the franchise. . .even though they couldn't do it elsewhere.
Yeah right, being dissatisfied with them for things like trading Betts and 6 sub-.500 seasons in the last 12 is the same thing as calling them Satan.
If you want to play the "level-headed" card, this ain't it.
Extreme negative framing and ignoring of any grey (like the Covid epidemic) speaks for itself. How can you trust any assessment from someone who views the world that way? Why should anyone take them seriously? They always have an argument they're trying to win, and it's tediously transparent.
I have worked in the building right behind right field for a decade (though I never go into the office anymore)
Fenway is transformed - there are high rise apartment buildings circling Fenway. A lot of that has to do with the FSG to invest in Fenway itself (and before FSG bought it Fenway was in many ways a dump). I suspect Henry is as proud of what has happened to the Fenway area as he is with the team. BOTH are significant accomplishments - and the team itself is a big part of that. I once did the math and calculated that during the week the Red Sox had as many people take tours of Fenway that showed up at a getaway game in the Trop in St Pete.
They aren't selling. They not only have won four titles, but they have completely changed a part of the city of Boston.
I get people are frustrated - but wanting FSG to sell the Red Sox just strikes me as really wrong.
True, but "they should sell the team" seems an overreaction to merely "dissatisfied."
The Giants won 3 WS in 5 seasons. They missed the playoffs in the in-between years and the 6th year. They've made the playoffs twice in the last 9 years. Where do their fans stand on ownership?
I get what you're saying.
Personally I voted 'no' but I understand a lot of the 'yes' sentiments.
I've been reading all the posts on this thread and the comments of the 'yes' voters seem pretty measured to me. I'm not really seeing torches and pitchforks stuff.