I voted yes. I was out after Fenway Sports Group helped to engineer the PawSox move. Now that they're stealing from Red Sox fans to prop up other business interests it's clear how much they don't care about the fanbase. Any other ownership group can steal from fans the way this group has started to, but maybe a new ownership will care about the product they give fans.
Do You Want John Henry To Sell The Red Sox?
- Thread starter McSweeny
- Start date
This again reminds me to wonder why the hell Cora still has a job. Add that in with his cheating and the players continued lack of focus and it's hard for me to see how if he was any other team's manager how he wouldn't have been canned. I'm assuming that when Bloom came in, he stood by Cora (which Cora really didn't do with Bloom). Because the team still hasn't really gone "all in", Cora has another legitimate excuse why they might end up bottom dwellers again.... and he'll get all the credit if they perform even a game or two better than last season. Ugh.
He already has. John Henry doesn't have majority control anymore nor is he the governor. While he has the biggest share of FSG, he can no longer act unilaterally nor is he the person in charge of the day to day operations.
I agree! And I think everything you say above is the very reason why many folks wanted the organization to be a little more aggressive on the FA and/or trade front, especially given that they have such a glaring achilles heal in starting pitching. A couple acquisitions - that would not jeopardize the future it is not a binary remember - could put them in the playoff hunt this season, even while knowing the team will likely be better in 2025, etc. The fact that the bullpen is very good, defense is improved, lineup is solid, and there are promising young players on the cusp, and the organization still won't at least partially solve their biggest problem in FA, seems to indicate a perplexing new modus operandi that is gratuitously penurious.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.
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.
For the record, I voted "no" as well, only caveat would be a "sale" to an ownership group headed by Theo, which isn't realistic.
4 titles in less than 25 years and I'm willing to give Henry and FSG at least two "CoBO" strikeouts in a row and more than 5 seasons since their last title before choosing the "unknown" that's for damn sure.
It'd be nice if they'd actually address the glaring weakness in the organization that has been painfully obvious for several seasons now - but at least firing Bloom and replacing him with Breslow (and by extension Bailey) is a start in that direction. Far more is needed.
4 titles in less than 25 years and I'm willing to give Henry and FSG at least two "CoBO" strikeouts in a row and more than 5 seasons since their last title before choosing the "unknown" that's for damn sure.
It'd be nice if they'd actually address the glaring weakness in the organization that has been painfully obvious for several seasons now - but at least firing Bloom and replacing him with Breslow (and by extension Bailey) is a start in that direction. Far more is needed.
I'd rather the ownership group sell all the other crap they occupy their time and money with first. Maybe then we could get back to business here.
Lots of teams have a big falloff one year after winning a title.
Cora was obviously concerned about the starting pitchers who pitched on abnormal schedules in the 2018 postseason, with relief stints between starts. His rest program didn't seem to work, but who knows if the alternative would have worked either.
Last edited:
But that goes to Cora's supposed main strength; he's a motivator that guys love playing for. Whether or not that's true (and it seems to be), it only becomes valuable if there's a result from it. Theoretically that result is a motivated and synergistic clubhouse, which paired with Cora's "regular time off regardless" approach, would lead to a committed team playing sharp baseball deep into the season. (Being well rested, motivated, and not pestered with trivialities.)
Cora had a great year in 2018 where he got out of the team's way for the most part. He had a very good year in 2021 (skin of the teeth, but results count). He had a neutral year in 2022 (injuries overwhelmed the team). He had two bad years - 2019, where he couldn't motivate the team to play at all, and 2023, which was aimless, blew key games, and absolutely quit down the stretch. (Additionally, nobody would characterize the overall play of the 2023 team as well-prepared, or sharp, or savvy, or even fundamentally sound.)
Other than that he's pretty average. His handling of the media is good, but there's only so much one can do (witness the constant negativity this year.) His tactical handling of the club is a very mixed bag, with the bullpen use being mechanical (at best), although he's picked up his PH and PR tendencies this past year.
Strategically, we go back to the previous paragraph - mixed bag. He almost never "steals" a winable game by coloring outside the box, and instead hopes things will come out in the long run, which is pretty much a couple weeks after the trading deadline instead of well before it. (Hand in glove with this is a key weakness is playing marginal players for far too long. Although some of that is on management and coaching/scouting, Cora never seemed shy about letting a go-nowhere guy fail miserably in a big moment.) But a handful of extra wins in 19 or 23 might have resulted in some trade-deadline acquisitions and a late season push like we saw in 21.
I think he's smart enough, and may have enough of a sense of urgency, to manage the 2024 team well enough.
But a slow start, punctuated by "Disappointed with the results, but positive signs, specific AB anecdotes, nicknames, and tip your cap, and we're better than this - just wait till we're back east" press conferences wouldn't surprise me at all.
But the slow ramping up of starters in spring of 2019 had nothing to do with motivation. They were concerned about the extra stress on the pitchers' arms in the 2018 postseason.
As for the "it's hard to repeat" theme, the last team to do it was in 2000. We've had 22 champs in a row fail to repeat since then.
They dropped 24 games with essentially the same club in the hands of a hyper-motivating genius manager, and underperformed their pythag.
He's a finance guy, what does more caring look like to you? Giving baseball opinions? I'd pass on that. We can debate their spending levels but mostly that's debating stuff from Cotillo tweets and short-term actions, rather than a longer range plan, which may or may not include more spending on players we like better than Snell or Montgomery. In other words, we would be arguing (again) over which factual scenario may or may not be true.
I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought to Fenway , with a big ribbon on his head.
But in all seriousness, how about just being visible and at least look like he cares outside of the bottom line? When was the last time the cameras showed him sitting in his box right next to the dugout? I watch damn near every Sox game and I can’t even recall the last time they showed JH at Fenway during a game. It used to be a very common occurrence.
edit. I’m not saying that him sitting or not sitting next to the dugout means he’s less engaged than in the past. I don’t know if there is a correlation between the two. I’m reading between the lines. Optics matter, especially in this town. JH just appears distant and out of touch and absent with the team and fan base.
Last edited:
Yeah, when a bunch of talented but aging pitchers underperform and/or get hurt it must be the manager's fault.
Yeah, I get that a lot of people care about that sort of thing, but I never will. He lives in Florida, it wasn't a problem before. I'm sure if Breslow or Kennedy need something from him, he returns their calls. People might be conflating MLB with the NFL here, where Kraft has to put on a suit 8 or 9 Sundays a year and show up at the stadium.
Feel free to excoriate me for this naive/forgetful set of perspectives, but...
It seemed like, in olden times, a guy bought a sports franchise as a bit of a passion project. He loved the game. If he was lucky to find the right opportunity, he loved the team. And he made an eff-ton of money as that franchise appreciated. It was always 'big business,' but now, it's a different kind of big business. It's corporate --> conglomerate-level big business. Then, you bought because you wanted to win and to experience winning and to be a part of winning.
With FSG, The Sawx are an asset, and it's about an algorithm or an accounting formula, and winning doesn't seem to be much of a factor. I don't quite understand how depreciation of brand equity isn't a part of that formula. I don't quite understand the rationale of it being 'good business' to spend $180 million to not be a factor in the race, versus spending $220 million to try to win. I wish i had the dosh to even consider what the difference of $40 million means in the grand scheme of things. But, if "This is The Way" going forward, count me in the I don't like it group. But, as for a vote, as to whether i want Henry to sell... re: a buyer—the next up—i don't know who is out there who would be thinking differently. I don't like being part of a package of assets. It's like being one wife in a harem. I think. Just guessing....
It seemed like, in olden times, a guy bought a sports franchise as a bit of a passion project. He loved the game. If he was lucky to find the right opportunity, he loved the team. And he made an eff-ton of money as that franchise appreciated. It was always 'big business,' but now, it's a different kind of big business. It's corporate --> conglomerate-level big business. Then, you bought because you wanted to win and to experience winning and to be a part of winning.
With FSG, The Sawx are an asset, and it's about an algorithm or an accounting formula, and winning doesn't seem to be much of a factor. I don't quite understand how depreciation of brand equity isn't a part of that formula. I don't quite understand the rationale of it being 'good business' to spend $180 million to not be a factor in the race, versus spending $220 million to try to win. I wish i had the dosh to even consider what the difference of $40 million means in the grand scheme of things. But, if "This is The Way" going forward, count me in the I don't like it group. But, as for a vote, as to whether i want Henry to sell... re: a buyer—the next up—i don't know who is out there who would be thinking differently. I don't like being part of a package of assets. It's like being one wife in a harem. I think. Just guessing....
Wyc is/was a diehard C's fan
Kraft is/was a diehard P's fan
What billionaire diehard Red Sox fan is there that the crowd saying no, would be ok to him selling to?
There's Hale Jr and old Jim Davis, and the 3 fidelity grandchildren, are they Red Sox fans? We could do a Ricketts/Cubs type deal with the latter perhaps?
Kraft is/was a diehard P's fan
What billionaire diehard Red Sox fan is there that the crowd saying no, would be ok to him selling to?
There's Hale Jr and old Jim Davis, and the 3 fidelity grandchildren, are they Red Sox fans? We could do a Ricketts/Cubs type deal with the latter perhaps?
Where is your evidence that they don't use winning as a factor? Spending and winning have a complicated, somewhat tenuous relationship in baseball. Also in olden times Tom Yawkey owned the Sox as a passion project and refused to sign Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays. Owners acted like GMs back then and they got away with it because they were playing other teams who also had owners acting like GMs, so they weren't necessarily any stupider than the competition. Now it is incredibly sophisticated and involves a team of experts, from nutrition to highly specialized coaching, not because it's a way to turn players into robots but because it HELPS THEM WIN. The Sox have sometimes been ahead of the knowledge curve and behind it at other times. What I want from my owner is to put a smart team in place, and then go golf or ride around in a boat, or whatever the soulless megarich lifestyle is like. I don't know what Henry is failing to do on the winning side of the equation that he should personally be doing.
Who is this die-hard Sox fan and what share of the GM's responsibilities does he plan to take over because he really really loves the Sox? That doesn't sound like a win to me. Everyone is on edge because they aren't splurging on starting pitching, but the track record of splurging on starting pitching is pretty bad, to the point where nobody else in MLB is giving Snell or Monty 7/210 either.
Zero evidence. 100% sentiment. Specifically, this year, based on what i think is a pretty 'universal' assessment by our fans and the media, that we needed a top of the rotation signing to feel good about just trying to compete for a wildcard berth. And we didn't get that and weren't in serious contention for anyone. Based on the players' sentiment, particularly Devers (did others speak out, as well?). And if we do eventually happen to get Montgomery after the QO thing is nullified, it's still not because of a proactive, aggressive strategy. It would be if a series of strange events (non-events) cascaded to allow the player to fall to us. Which doesn't connote to me a plan or an effort.
As i said, my post was about my 'feeling,' which is only somewhat informed, by a lot of this site and MLBTR. Maybe they've determined it's not worth trying this year. I'm whining and griping because i dislike the trend over the past handful of years, knowing i have no 'right' to gripe about the past 20 years. And, part of this is probably related to age- or anhedonia-related personal trajectories, where i'm lapsing toward apathy with the Sox and my college hoops team, after 46 and 38 years respectively of being an ardent fan.
Yes, it's big business. A lot of very smart people are making decisions and choices. But, again, but in a different way—if i have a net worth of $1,000 and i spend $180 per year to sponsor a dodgeball team that i don't expect to be good enough to get into the playoffs, why wouldn't i spend $240 to give them a significantly better chance? I know it's not as simple as that, but that's the lens through which i choose to view it. Because i'm not seeing how this is a plan that becomes more sustainable or effective next year either.
I believe Henry has been deeply involved in a lot of the biggest strategic/payroll decisions this team has made since he bought the team. I think the team's results are heavily impacted by his decisions, good and bad.
Same manager, too. So if he's responsible for the disappointing 2019, surely he's also responsible for 2018 (in which they considerably *outperformed* their pythag of 103 wins en route to one of the best seasons of any team ever; the dropoff in pythagorean record was "only" 16 wins).
Something that I don't think gets enough attention in discussions of that 2018–9 stretch is that Price, Sale, and Porcello put what may have been their final healthy and effective seasons into that 2018 team: each pitcher was worth more rWAR in 2018 than in the balance of their careers (or in Sale's case, careers to date: he could break that trend with another ~2 WAR; still, "it took Sale five-plus years to replicate his WAR from the 2018 season" doesn't exactly change the point).
Porcello 2018 rWAR 2.5; 2019 0.9.
Price 2018 rWAR 3.7; 2019 1.6.
Sale 2018 rWAR 6.5; 2019 2.1.
That's an 8-WAR swing right there, or half the difference in pythagorean record between 2018 and 2019.
For what it's worth (not much), I think it's possible that Cora was right to be concerned about the toll of the 2018 season on the 2019 team, especially the starting pitchers, but that what he chose to do in Spring Training to attempt to address that reality did not work or was even counterproductive.
A 24-game season-to-season drop-off for a 100+ win team is really quite unusual. I haven't seen a comprehensive list, but the biggest drop I've been able to find in a quick search (excluding teams who won 100+ in the year before a strike or COVID shortened season) would be the 2021-2022 SF Giants, who fell from 107 wins to 81, a drop of 26 wins, two more than the '18-'19 Sox. The 2001-2002 Seattle Mariners won 116 then fell off to 93, a 23-game drop, one short of the 2018-2019 Red Sox' 24-game plummet. The 1946-1947 Red Sox fell 21 games, from 104 to 83.
The 1942-1943 Brooklyn Dodgers dropped from 104 to 81, 23 games, but that was wartime baseball, an era when rosters were extremely volatile due to circumstances beyond anyone's control. So I put an asterisk next to that one. The 1984-1985 Tigers fell by 20, from 104 to 84.
Again, not a comprehensive list and I may certainly have missed some. But from this brief look, it appears that drops of 20+ wins for 100+ win teams are very rare, and only one that I found had a worse decline than the 2018-2019 Red Sox. If anyone else has more examples to add, please do.
One reason it's unusual is that there are very few 100 win teams to begin with.
Thanks for doing the research. I wonder how often a 100+ win season was followed up with another. It's a fairly rare occurrence to win 100 in the first place, so it's presumably normal for a team to win fewer games in the following season. Sometimes significantly fewer (like 10-15+ fewer).
But to build on this (and maybe this is part of your point?), it's also possible that nothing would have worked. In the 2022 ALDS, NY had to push Nestor Cortes (starting on 3 days rest for the first time in his career in a deciding game 5) and Wandy Peralta (pitching in all five ALDS games on consecutive days, because a rainout pushed back game 1 and NY had a ton of bullpen injuries), and both were a shell of themselves for all of last season.
It doesn't look like they were wrong, either. Eovaldi's elbow blew up in April, David Price had a cyst in his wrist in early August, and Sale's exploded in mid-August.
Which I think gives a broader answer to this question:
At the time DD was fired, the Sox had three pitchers with large contracts on the IL: Eovaldi signed for 4/68 after 2018, Price was signed for 7/217 after 2015, and Chris Sale had just negotiated a $150 million extension that hadn't even kicked in yet. DD wasn't fired solely because the Sox were disappointing; he was fired because the Sox had spent their way into a no-win situation with huge contracts for injured players.
I think this is basically the fiction that Marvin Miller spent his career busting as the first head of the MLBPA. It seemed that way because of a fawning press, a general wish among the fans for the pastoral nature of baseball to remain untainted by money, and an absolute lack of representation/rights/options for the players...but many owners were notoriously cheap and nickel-and-dimed players whenever possible. It's easy to look like you're the benevolent benefactor when you never have to negotiate for anything because you own the players for life and those players have essentially no power in contract disputes.
The 2013-2014 Red Sox went from 97 wins to 71 wins. Doesn't meet the 100 win bar but pretty close.
That's all fine, I'm just not sure how much of this is on the owner's plate. My wild guess is that he outlines some spending parameters -- top line number, some stuff about bad investments like that Price deal -- and then allows the rest of his people to implement it. If you want them to spend over the LT, I think you have to acknowledge the risks in doing so to the team's ability to win later. They aren't huge risks, but if you take on that risk in exchange for a pitcher in his 30s, that's not necessarily a good way to cash in that risk.
I think this all comes down to people not accepting how SPs are -- rightfully -- treated totally differently than top position players when it comes to long term FA deals into their 30s. Not just by Henry and the Sox but by pretty much all teams.
I don't think I'd call winning 100+ rare, but I wouldn't call it common either. In the "modern" era (1900-today) 113 teams have done it. In terms of back-to-back 100+ win seasons, that is more rare. The Yankees have done it 6 times, including one streak of 3 straight from 2002-2004. Treating the COVID year as non-existent, the L.A. Dodgers are currently on streak of 4 straight 100+-win seasons.
The Brooklyn Dodgers won 100+ in 1941 and 1942. The Orioles had 3 straight from 1969-1971 and back-to-back in 1979-1980. The Cardinals did three straight from 1942 to 1944, though again that was wartime so there's got to be an asterisk. The also had back-to-back 100+ seasons in 2004-2005. Then there's the Astros who did in three straight, 2017-2019.
I'm sure there are others, but probably not too many. In general, it seems that a drop-off of 10-15 is pretty common, relatively speaking, but drops of 20 or more are very rare for 100+ win teams.
But isn't ownership setting lower spending levels than we're used to? Lower than those that saw us winning championships? More importantly for me and my loose understanding, though, is that these new limits are lower than what are expected to actually improve the team from a series of last-place finishes. It's cool to set a low level if it's demonstrated that that can be effective toward getting you where you need to go. But, when that doesn't get the desired results, then the obvious options are to change the method or change the desire. Feels like the desire/intent isn't what i as a fan want to continue to invest myself in. There's a conflict in sports—a fan typically gets invested in the team and its players, and then there's an ownership factor that you hope doesn't present itself as an obstacle toward sustaining that fandom. One hopes the ownership furthers and bolsters the fandom. It's not doing that for me right now, and that feels like a change.
I totally grok that pitching contracts are a riskier proposition than the other position players. And still, if what you need is X, you have to get X. "Irregardless." The rest of the league assumes the same types of risk and they're beating us. That said, i'm not even saying we should be giving Montgomery the seven years he wants. Or that Snell is the guy you want to build your franchise around for the next four years. One of them might let you play in the post season, though. If you're a billionaire and this is 'just money,' i want an ownership team that regards it as just money, and that the money is the price of their passion. It's a concern that the passion seems like it's about building a portfolio.
I just don't know what those alleged lower levels are. If they are hard lines, even if it tanks the season, that would be garbage, but that doesn't line up with their history. My hunch is that they are holding the line for now on spending, because they think the window isn't going to open for a bit longer, which I sort of agree with. I've been pro-Monty all along, and still am, but otherwise I am OK with waiting.
You're pretty much stating my exact thoughts.
Regarding the payroll, there's one undeniable fact: it's unprecedented under Henry for the Red Sox to be something like 10th-12th in payroll in back to back years. And they're still 3rd in market value and revenue, I believe.
Not necessarily. Through out their tenure, the budget has more or less hovered around the luxury tax threshold. When warranted, usually when the team is unquestionably a contender (so seasons like 2004 or 2011 or 2017-2018-2019), they go over. But there have been plenty of seasons in which they have not.
That other teams have started spending more than in the past and pushed them down the overall rankings for a year or two doesn't really change how they operate nor should it. Just because other teams spend stupid money (cough...Mets...cough...Padres...cough), doesn't mean everyone should follow suit just to say they did.
This is a little off topic but I checked out the ticket office because I couldn’t believe hearing there was monster seats still available for the opening series and I noticed there was promotion for almost every single game of the season. Giving away replica jerseys, bobbleheads, whatever you could think of. It does honestly feel like a money grab selling the “experience” more so then on the team themselves. I honestly clicked off and went and got two opening day tickets for the Sea Dogs five rows back from third base for under $40! I’ve never thought I would be more excited to watch a AA team over the pro team, that just speaks on the ownership of the team.
Thoughts and prayers on this harrowing experience. Save yourself a rude awakening and don’t look at the promotions scheduled by every MLB team (and milb team).
Enjoy your OD Sea Dogs bobblehead!
Just curious, do you think the price of sitting on top of the Monster during what is VERY likely to be a cold weather game might have something to do with their availability? I'm also unsure about your use of the term "money grab in the context of your post. I'm not sure how giveaways fall into the category of selling the experience. IMO Monster seating might be considered selling the experience, but you seem to see the availability of them as being some sort of minus for the team. Trying to sell tix by adding the incentive of promotional items is IMO a reflection of the fact that the team doesn't draw as well as the once did. Every team offers giveaways, some more than others. I can't fault any of them for trying to sell tickets.
All of that said, Minor League baseball is a wonderful and much more affordable option to MLB. Many years ago we had the Cubs AA franchise about a 1/2 from me and it was great watching future MLBers Greg Maddux, Mark Grace, Joe Girardi, Jamie Moyer, Rafael Palmiero, NLROY Jerome Walton and others. Being a Red Sox fan, I'm sure you'll enjoy your Portland experience and if you're close enough to take further advantage you should. We attended our first WOOstah game last year and look forward to going to a few more games this season.
The Mets and Padres are easy targets because they spent a lot and didn't get the results.
But if you're going to be fair about this you can't ignore that the Rangers also spent like crazy the last two years and they now have their first world championship.
The fact that so many more teams are outspending us than before clearly suggests that the money is there...
Of course the money's there. I don't think that's ever been a point of contention. We all have ideas on how it could or should be spent, but the recent success of the Rangers doesn't lessen the argument that a similar path taken by multiple teams hasn't panned out.
Does it though? The Mets and Padres pared payroll this off-season (well, technically the Mets did it at the deadline last season). The Rangers reportedly have cash flow concerns that may or may not have impacted their decision on Jordan Montgomery.
Sure the money might be there to spend, but spending it just for the sake of spending it doesn't win you anything. The Rangers spent big on the right guys (or not considering Jacob deGrom's deal) and it paid off. Good for them. They might pay the price for it on the back end. Worth noting that the Sox are just now getting out of the price they paid to go all in for 2018's title.
I don't see that. There were 8 teams that exceeded CBT last year. Of those, only the Dodgers and Phillies have continued to spend heavily; the rest have all had fairly modest winters.
Absolutely and the Sox just aren't at that point yet and that's likely (hopefully) part of the reason that they've tightened the reins when it comes to spending.
Flags fly forever. The moaning and groaning about the price the Sox paid for 2018 is revolting. Last I checked the franchise is worth about $5 billion now, so they seem to have survived the horrors of spending on the 2018 team.
Theoretical franchise value and cash on hand aren't the same thing, but yes, they did survive, by having a chunk of their SP budget locked up in Chris Sale's declining and/or broken arm, and by shipping off Price's contract in the ugliest manner possible.
Are people moaning and groaning or are they open to the idea that there may be a more sustainable way to go about things?
I don't know if he's a Red Sox fan, but Seth Klarman might be a great local billionaire owner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Klarman