Do You Want John Henry To Sell The Red Sox?
- Thread starter McSweeny
- Start date
He already owns a piece of the team. He is (or at least was) one of the limited partners in the partnership Henry put together to buy the team.
More sustainable doesn't have to be an all or none proposal when it comes to spending. Is there reason to think that spending can't be a strategic combination of current MLB talent, the ETA of key prospects as well as projected FAs for seasons that align with the former?
Precisely my point. There’s a reason teams rarely repeat as champs or even as pennant winners in this sport.
These sort of cycles are pretty typical and a function of spending to go over the top. The roster was pretty clogged in 2010-12 with overpaid go-nowhere players, which was partially a function of trying to hang onto the 2006-2009 core and spend it into being relevant. We just got a magic reboot in the middle of 2012, and nobody beat their breast over Adrian Gonzalez.
2013 was maybe the original "short term bridge" year that, against the odds, worked. We were 4th in spending and got lucky with the deep pen (and Koji dominating), but our rotation was a shambles: Lackey off the IL and Dempster and Peavy (mid season) after Buchholz went down.
Then it fell apart in 2014 (5th in spending, but overall stapled to not-great production) as the replacements began to arrive - Boegarts (sucked), Bradley (sucked with the bat) and Betts (good, but not world shaking).
2015 was just as bad, even though spending was high, as we tried to buy our way in with Hanley, Sandoval, and traded for Porcello.
2016 saw us trading for Kimbrell, signing Price, extending Porcello, etc. to make it to a post-season sweep in the ALDS at the hands of the Indians.
2017 saw the trade for Sale, but we still got swept. The younger guys kept developing though, but were fast approaching FA.
2018 - WS.
2019 - same team (mostly) does not make the post season, and is completely bogged down with waste contracts.
***
So that's a clogged team in 2010-2012, a reboot that works with the old core, then a transition to a combo of older core (Pedrioa/Ortiz, etc.) and young, controlled players (Boegarts, Betts, Bradley, Workman, Swihart, Vazquez, Barnes.) But even that needed push after FA push over 4 years to get us to the WS. And it's arguable as to whether the FA push would have worked at all if the young core had stalled or had more key players wash out.
I think the 2020 reboot Betts/Price was a bit like the 2012 reboot, with the key exception that the minors were bare, and we had no obvious wave of young, cost-controlled talent coming up to start playing in 2020 or 2021, or 2022. We did have some (Houck/Dalbec) and acquired/developed others (Whitlock), but the high-minors gap persisted. Some were forced up early in 2022 like Winckowski and Bello. But last year was sort of the more natural 2014 wave for guys like Casas, Crawford, Winckowski, and Bello.
Could this team be competitive now? Possibly. But we were 3, 4, and 3 in spending in 2015, 2016, 2017.
Frankly, when I see people running around with their hair on fire this offseason, I have to wonder if they were around in 2011 or 2014 or 2019.
Or if they were threatening not to buy tickets if the Sox didn't sign Pablo Sandoval because third base is "such an obvious pre-season need."
(And, BTW, that's not a cheap shot. There were a lot of signings that had to be eaten/traded/cleared from the books before the next one. Personally I'd rather have the Sox spend intelligently at the right time, rather than lock up a chunk of 2026, 2027, and 2028's resources to a player that might not be producing then.)
Last edited:
More sustainable should have meant recognition of the shifting (aka outsized growing demands) for SPs over the last half decade…and doing something about it besides dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge for half decade.
The deplorable state of SPs in the org, with Breslow just getting out of the gate on his program, why they won’t even bother with a wooden nickel.
(fake edit - sorry, don’t want to rehash this argument and other threads well highlighted the perils of drafting pitchers, etc. But what is the point of stacked up toolsy teens if your rotation is utter shiite? And shallow shiite at that!)
I mean, that IS part of the answer. But it's also anecdotal -- the Sox have had two particularly high picks recently and had can't miss-level position players fall into their laps. If the Tigers took Marcelo, we'd probably be preparing for the Jackson Jobe era to begin. Last year it's hard to speculate on who might have fallen if not Teel, but someone? I dunno. Honestly, given their not overwhelmingly awesome pitching development program pre-Breslow, it may have all been for the best. But it has to change going forward.
Your second paragraph reads like you didn't read the post that you quoted as does your fake edit.
That observation is confusing, but so was my post, so fair enough. I was actually trying to agree with your post and am expressing a wish it could be applied retroactively wrt pitching.
To be clear though, I am fine with them not drafting first round starting pitchers, particularly given the number one with a bullet options lately. I am, however, not fine with the overall use of draft resources on pitching (by number or dollar amount). I am not fine with the allocation of IFA money towards pitching. I am not fine with whatever investment was being made in pitching development. I do expect all that to continue to improve under Breslow. Literally all of it.
They’ve gone over eleven times in the last twenty years, but NY was really the only team to blow by it every year. We never criticized though because they always spent in terms of where their revenue fell. They were always for the most part in the past twenty years always a top five payroll, for the most pat number two.
Pointing out that seats are available just speaks to the interest level of the team compared to previous seasons, and no I don’t believe it’s weather related as I’ve always saved up a bit of cash to purchase a couple pairs of tickets when they’ve gone on sale and have never seen the availability of seats to this extent. Front row lodge vs the Yankees, Monster seats during the summer, they are struggling to sell tickets and I would say it’s concerning when you look at the attendance drop off the previous two seasons. I’m not bringing this up as an argument towards selling the club, more so that the who’ll idea of selling “the experience” vs pointing the best product on the field has left a sour taste in my mouth.
Not sure how you took my comment as complaining about free memorabilia when I was just pointing out that the team has relied more on promotional events to sell tickets as to previous years. However when a team isn’t spending relative to their revenue I’ll admit pushing commemorative “bricks” doesn’t lessen the frustration.
I miss the old ownership group; before all of the diversity into alternate arenas.
I want a Red Sox first owner. I don’t believe that is what we have now.
I want a Red Sox first owner. I don’t believe that is what we have now.
Like Tom Yawkey? No thanks. And John Henry was still mostly all about the hedge funds when he came to the team’s rescue.
nope: John Henry prior to the shift in resources and attention spread
I want the old, hungry, more interested in the Red Sox version of the fella to buy the team
80+ years without a title? Four titles in the next 15 years? I’d call that a rescue. You may call it something else. But it sure was a good thing.
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.
It was a fortuitous occurrence for Red Sox fans.
I'm just viewing Henry a lot more cold-bloodedly now than I once did, maybe because I can see how cold-bloodedly he views the team.
Who was responsible for the 2 greatest trades in team history and opening up the wallet for Manny?
it’s like people forget
Would that be the same ownership that couldn't be bothered to invest in the ballpark or the team beyond the headliners and decided to sell it to a group that would?
Who's disputing any of this and can't an argument be made that the Henry group didn't fuck up what was in already in place and over the course of 3 seasons augmented that with the on and off field acquisitions that took them over the top?
Yes. Fortuitous. Luck of the draw. Had nothing to do with them bringing in better management and then players.
So I guess you are saying management doesn’t matter, and this group could be lucky and win four more over the next fifteen years?
Aisles and concourses are still narrow. I’d rather have either lower ticket prices or a new ballpark. Ticket prices are way too high for the product in the field.
in any case, I’m there to watch the players (and not from the RF rooftops) and not drink $15 IPA’s. Then again, I have neither a beard nor a pink hat.
Of course if they also would have won in 03,05 and 06 and 08 like they should have, I’d be saying different things
I go before and after and don’t drink beer, so valid point I guess for those that do things differently
Totally. As flawed as he was that 2004 championship team was as much Duquette's (and previous ownership) as Theo/Henry's ....yes, they can't do it without Theo/Henry. But they can't do it without the core that was created before they arrived, either.
I don't think it is unreasonable as a fan to want the teams owner to be all-in when you speaking about your favorite team. I personally am very happy with what John Henry has done for the team during his tenure. However, it certainly does appear that he has lost some of the go for it nature he exhibited back earlier in his tenure. Granted he has climbed the mountain (4x) and so the initial drive to get there isn't as urgent. And I am not saying his calculations are wrong about about the cost of pitching or that he is being unreasonable. But it just doesn't feel like he is all in. When I look at sports team owners and dream of who I can get for my favorite team, I want a Mark Cuban-type. I want an owner that is sitting at every game, cheering, living and dying with the fans. I want someone that is willing speak his mind on how the state of the league is etc. I am not saying that I have a better replacement for John Henry at this time, because I don't and there are WAY WAY WAY worse alternatives out there. But it certainly would be nice as a fan to have an owner that sees the team as more than a bottom line. YMMV.
And we know he isn't "all-in" how? Because he no longer prowls the sidelines with his fly open like Jerry Jones? Or goes to the combine with a stopwatch like Bob Kraft? Or fires managers mid-game? Or writes checks like Steve Cohen just so Steve Cohen can see Steve Cohen's name on the pack page of the tabloids?
The owner ultimately bears responsibility, but I don't think anyone can even say what "all-in" looks like; so speculating about Henry's "all-in-ness" is whatever the opposite of wish-casting is.
Precisely. If "all-in" means mortgaging the future in an attempt to win this year, count me out.
I said you want an owner to be all-in a Mark Cuban-type. Mark is very engaged with his fans and team. From what I know of him, he is also not an embarrassment to his fans or team. So I don't think he was a bad example to bring forth as my idealistic owner. Clearly you don't like the versions of those owners you referenced. But I did not ask for one of them either. I stated that it appears he is not as all-in as he used to be because he is being far more tactical and apparently tight with the budget. It has been said ad nauseum on this forum that our budget should have been limited to the first level of the CBT where the penalties were entirely financial. The Boston Red Sox revenue stream could handle that. However, we have been told this year that our budget will most likely stay lower than it was even last year. I am sorry but that isn't exactly inspiring the fan base and doesn't scream ALL-IN. I was not someone who was clamoring to sign Snell to any offer he received or Monty to a 5 year $150M deal. But I certainly could see a 4 year $100M deal for Monty. Sure it may get a little ugly that last year, or the first. No one knows!! But a $25M/yr contract would not be crushing to this team and would have fit our very needs perfectly. Maybe Monty didn't want to sign that... I don't know. But if you continue to have the utmost confidence in Henry that is great for you. My confidence level has slid in recent years and did not improve with this offseason.
I truncated your full post, which I agree with whole-heartedly. But I was ruminating on how lucky we are as fans that every time the Sox have been in the World Series this century, they've *won* the World Series. We are fortunate!
That's the problem. That's a perfectly fine definition. So is "willing to silently absorb heaps of abuse while being patient with the long-term approach."
Nope. Recent results have shaken my confidence a bit. I just dont pretend to be inside his head so as to be able to trace the results to some ephemeral characteristic that has no real meaning. We can debate OPS vs. WAR vs. DRS vs. UZR. Debating the size of "fires in the belly," "caring," or eye-calmness is a different matter.
Last edited:
Exactly. I'd say you're batting 2-for-2 today. I'm open to alternative definitions of "all-in," but mine corresponds the most closely to what I've seen both here and elsewhere.
I've been pretty vocal in my criticism of the front office over the last few years and, more recently, of FSG, but I've taken my time posting here because I don't really know the answer. Henry & Co. merit a lot of love for the 4 titles and there's the devil-you-know argument (I think about Jets fans who were ecstatic when Leon Hess finally sold out).
Here is one thing I have been thinking about lately. My job is to invest with private equity firms on behalf of a large institutional investor. One thing that many of these guys will talk about is the danger of holding an asset too long. It's not that they might have missed out on the peak time to sell value-wise, it's more about a feeling that their involvement with a portfolio company becomes stale after a while. They've pulled the levers they can pull after several years, it's time to turn the reigns over to somebody else. New ownership brings new perspectives, a renewed sense of urgency.
Henry brought a ton of new ideas when he bought the team - about how to maximize revenue from the ballpark (while improving the fan experience), who would make up the front office, how the Sox could exploit their revenue advantages from Fenway and NESN to outcompete other teams for talent.
Those days seem like ancient history now. Maybe it is time for a new perspective, as long as it's not Woody Johnson's...
Here is one thing I have been thinking about lately. My job is to invest with private equity firms on behalf of a large institutional investor. One thing that many of these guys will talk about is the danger of holding an asset too long. It's not that they might have missed out on the peak time to sell value-wise, it's more about a feeling that their involvement with a portfolio company becomes stale after a while. They've pulled the levers they can pull after several years, it's time to turn the reigns over to somebody else. New ownership brings new perspectives, a renewed sense of urgency.
Henry brought a ton of new ideas when he bought the team - about how to maximize revenue from the ballpark (while improving the fan experience), who would make up the front office, how the Sox could exploit their revenue advantages from Fenway and NESN to outcompete other teams for talent.
Those days seem like ancient history now. Maybe it is time for a new perspective, as long as it's not Woody Johnson's...
I said it was fortuitous for Red Sox fans. Please stick to what I actually said and not what you think I mean.
Makes sense. It's sort of accepted in sports that managers and coaches have shelf-lives/players need to hear "new voices."
Though I'm not on team sell, I totally respect this well thought out POV.
This is a great perspective, PJF. Maybe we give Theo a few years as a new minority owner to impact the franchise in new directions. In fact, I'd bet that's a big reason why they brought him into ownership rather than just as a highly compensated consultant (I'm sure Theo made it a condition, too).
I love this POV, but the Bolded is key here... Its pretty easy for a team to fire/move on from a GM or manager in any sport. If the next owner is Woody Johnson-like, we are F*cked and stuck with them for god knows how long... The next owner could be 100X better than the current sox ownership, but it could also be 100X WORSE... We don't know and Im not sure If i would want to take that gamble
See LAA and OAK fans... I bet you they would give up their firstborn to get competent ownership, but that won't happen unless they sell the team on their own accord or MLB forces a sale (which rarely happens in any sport) and the only ones that come to mind are McCourt (LAD) and Sterling (Clippers) in the NBA.. and both of those forced sales were litigated to death before they reluctantly sold the team
As the saying goes: "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
Last edited:
Thanks for the very reasonable take.
My counter to that is that during the Henry-led tenure, they have always pivoted when faced with a tough stretch, and eventually succeeded. This is not Belichick and the Patriots.
The Sox have won with three different FO leadership groups, all subsequent to the first put in place by ownership when something else was not working, or as was the case after 2011/2012, simply fell apart. I am extremely pleased with what they've put in place post-Bloom, who is the only one of the last four not to bring home a championship but did get them to the ALCS, and want to see how that works out before calling for their heads. Particularly with Epstein again part of the picture.
Your points are well taken, though, and in that context makes it worth discussing, so thanks again.
Last edited:
Bolded...... I can definitely see '03 as a year they should have/could have made it. Facing a Marlins team that was young and talented though... hmmmmmm
'05 though? Huh? Schilling was injured. Their best pitcher was David Wells! They were IMO pretty lucky to make it in the playoffs even.
'06 I can maybe squint to see a WS win and in '08 they really, yes, "should have". The drought between then and the '13 team had so much talent that looking back I'm still amazed they never even got to at least an AL Championship those years.
This is a great, thoughtful post.
I think that Henry brought a critical “fast follow” approach to the franchise in his early years. It wasn’t that the Sox were the innovators behind a much more data-based approach to player acquisitions, but they were certainly a very early adopter. And that provided them competitive advantages.
One of my concerns about the current state of the game is that there is a certain sameness to nearly every franchise’s approach. The data-based evaluations of players, both major leaguers and prospects, are highly normalized. And it’s led to almost everyone attempting the three true outcomes, max velocity approach to the game (among other things).
My point is that in the past few years, since DD was jettisoned, it seems clear that Henry has embraced wanting to either be the Braves, or be a large market Rays. But the thing is, almost everyone is trying to be those things. So without a generational talent at GM, as we had with Theo and DD, we’ve kinda flopped trying to mimic everyone else.
Ultimately, I don’t want Henry to sell the team. What I want is him to fill the FO with people who will lead the next evolution in franchise management. Hopefully Breslow is that guy. We’ll see.
The other aspect of the excellent post by @Philip Jeff Frye is that private equity now holds a stake in the Sox. Even if Theo has some master plan in place to restore the Sox to be more competitive, the nature of that capital is that it typically needs market+ returns over a fairly short time period.
To put it succinctly, given the current structure of Sox ownership, there may well be limits to how they can operate that are being dictated by others beyond JWH.
Right but the fact that private equity has a stake is a function of the ownership that sold them that stake, so ownership can still be criticized.
My post doesn't have anything to do with criticism though you penalizing them for '03 is one of the funniest things I have read in this forum. The FO literally handed the person making pitching decisions data that might have won him a WS. He chose to ignore it for a gut feeling. That's all on Gump.
Communications clearly weren’t at their best then then.
And they needed better data when they were making their managerial hire prior to the 2012 season. Since when is being out of the (domestic) game for 9 years a good thing? That’s all on them.
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.