For the next time someone cries poverty on behalf of our billionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
22,820
Maine
I don't think anyone has cried poverty about Red Sox ownership. I also don't think a twitter graphic with dubious sources (no teams except the Braves publicly release their actual revenue numbers so it's all guesswork otherwise) is all that convincing of anything.

The team is 11 games over .500 at the All Star break. That's not a result that suggests ownership is uncommitted to winning. They just appear to be winning in a way that doesn't suit your preferences. To each his own, I guess.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
720
New York, USA
If I’m a Mets fan, I am full of joy and praise that our owner is committed to winning because they spend.

Such a wonder graphic that really tells the true story of how to win. Please ignore the Yankees, Orioles and Rays.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
We're bottom-half in payroll compared to revenue:
https://x.com/Brooks_Gate/status/1813226032066884039
I don't think you can figure out profits from these numbers but I think they're a reasonable proxy for the commitment level of ownership to winning
Well, this thread title doesn't have troll written all over it? Seriously, please post examples of people "crying poverty on behalf of our owners".
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
33,048
If I’m a Mets fan, I am full of joy and praise that our owner is committed to winning because they spend.
Even if its spending on players who suck? (He wouldnt be the first fucktillionaire sports owner who saw a guy on TV and demanded his underlings sign him)
Not all Mets suck, but Mets owner probably likes seeing his name on the back pages almost as much as he does winning.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
720
New York, USA
Even if its spending on players who suck? (He wouldnt be the first fucktillionaire sports owner who saw a guy on TV and demanded his underlings sign him)
Not all Mets suck, but Mets owner probably likes seeing his name on the back pages almost as much as he does winning.
Sarcasm from me. I endorse the build up the farm to supplement the deep pockets versus spending lavishly. So happy the Sox have young exciting player with a cohort in the high minors knocking on the door.
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
351
I don't think anyone has cried poverty about Red Sox ownership. I also don't think a twitter graphic with dubious sources (no teams except the Braves publicly release their actual revenue numbers so it's all guesswork otherwise) is all that convincing of anything.

The team is 11 games over .500 at the All Star break. That's not a result that suggests ownership is uncommitted to winning. They just appear to be winning in a way that doesn't suit your preferences. To each his own, I guess.
Forbes is a dubious source?
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
351
Well, this thread title doesn't have troll written all over it? Seriously, please post examples of people "crying poverty on behalf of our owners".
Maybe "cry poverty" is the wrong term but people defend the owners all the time in here even though they seem checked out as they've moved on to soccer and racing. My stance all along is that the Red Sox are a top-5 fanbase and that comes out of the (excellent) fanbase's pockets so I expect them to have a top-5 salary.
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
351
Sarcasm from me. I endorse the build up the farm to supplement the deep pockets versus spending lavishly. So happy the Sox have young exciting player with a cohort in the high minors knocking on the door.
Love the team right now. Hope they spend now that the "window" is "open".
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
9,621
Forbes is a dubious source?
Go read the discussion from the first time this graphic was posted, I linked it above.

The only team with publicly known revenue info is Atlanta, and the Forbes number here doesn't square with that one at all.
 

jbupstate

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2022
720
New York, USA
Love the team right now. Hope they spend now that the "window" is "open".
I hope they spend smartly. Want to avoid a disaster signing like Xander. Go for the Yamamoto type but stay away from the Snell and Montgomery guys that are the best available for huge dollars but are not worth it.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
49,541
The team seemingly does well every time there is angst about our owners’ spending habits.

Keep this going!
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
4,228
South Carolina via Dorchestah
To salvage this thread, I would like to note that exactly 100 years ago today the Red Sox got whomped by the Tigers, losing 18-1.

Rookie reliever Red Ruffing came in for mop-up work and gets RUFFED UP for three runs in three innings. By the time Ruffing got good, he was sent to the Yankees in a Bettsian trade that netted the Sox some cash and OF Cedric "Don't Call Me Fred" Durst, he of lifetime -2.3 WAR. Jeter Downs wishes he was Cedric Durst.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
96,038
Oregon
There are three "division" leaders ranked "below" the "Red" Sox on "that" chart.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,169
(B)Austin Texas
Lock the thread! It's boring. If someone in a bar started this argument, s/he would have been drowned out and a new topic would already have emerged.
 
Last edited:

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
25,696
I imagine a man in a powdered wig, flourishing a digital feather in ink, dictating this post.
Following the dictating of the post, Cassvt2023 found the nearest fainting couch, declared, "Why I never!" and proceeded to flop so spectacularly that Dick Fosbury himself rose from the dead to give our highly insulted friend a round of applause.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Maybe "cry poverty" is the wrong term but people defend the owners all the time in here even though they seem checked out as they've moved on to soccer and racing. My stance all along is that the Red Sox are a top-5 fanbase and that comes out of the (excellent) fanbase's pockets so I expect them to have a top-5 salary.
I've supported ownership/management of this team quite often (just for shits and giggles, let's call it 65-70% of the time) since the start of the Bloom era and have also been critical of them. I've been as disappointed about the last places finishes as the next guy, but I also understand that there are several ways of going about building a team and having a top 5 salary is no guarantee of success, let alone sustainable success. At the end of the day I think you need a blend of young, cost controlled talent as a that has REASONABLY SHOWN that they may be ready to take things to the next level if surrounded by free agents that fill the team's deficiencies. This team has been in flux for the past couple of seasons. Contracts of aging players have expired or have been moved. If the first 90 or so games of this season haven't been a mirage, that young, cost controlled talent seems to be coming into it's own and forming what could be the core of this team for the next 5+ years.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
12,726
Grantland Rice once wrote of Cedric Durst that:

"He played not for the baser concerns of man. Not to fill his coin purse. Nor for adulation or praise. Confoundingly, he did it not for love of the game nor the thrill of competition. When asked long after his retirement what the motivations were that drove his relentless pursuit of mediocrity, he stated clearly that it was a singular desire. 'Twas all for the nookie, and nookie alone."
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
There are three "division" leaders ranked "below" the "Red" Sox on "that" chart.
Yep and the top 4 teams on the list of revenue % spent on payroll look like this....
Mets 87% ...3 games over .500
Blue Jays 75%...8 games under .500
D'Backs 70.1%...1 game over .500
Padres 60.9%...1 game over .500

Red Sox 43%...11 games over .500

I'm not sure what any of it means, but hey it's Forbes.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Maybe "cry poverty" is the wrong term but people defend the owners all the time in here even though they seem checked out as they've moved on to soccer and racing. My stance all along is that the Red Sox are a top-5 fanbase and that comes out of the (excellent) fanbase's pockets so I expect them to have a top-5 salary.
I've pushed back on "checked out ... soccer" as a statement of fact because it's just some fans' guess as to what's happening in the black box. They don't do anything in public, so it's hard to know what they are thinking. It makes a lot more sense that they are withholding spending for baseball reasons than they've just moved on from their $5b asset. I guess that counts as defending the owners? But I think of it as just not catastrophizing the situation.
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
351
Why are "window" and "open" in quotes?
There was a lot of discussion in the offseason about how we were waiting for our competitive window. I generally thought this logic was dumb, since teams get better quicker than you think and we had 3 top-50 prospects starting the season at AA, so I argued the "window" was already "open".
I thought we determined the graphic was poorly supported?
Sorry I didn't read every post in a 41 page thread. Thought it was an informative post and happy to see updated data to the contrary!
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
351
I've supported ownership/management of this team quite often (just for shits and giggles, let's call it 65-70% of the time) since the start of the Bloom era and have also been critical of them. I've been as disappointed about the last places finishes as the next guy, but I also understand that there are several ways of going about building a team and having a top 5 salary is no guarantee of success, let alone sustainable success. At the end of the day I think you need a blend of young, cost controlled talent as a that has REASONABLY SHOWN that they may be ready to take things to the next level if surrounded by free agents that fill the team's deficiencies. This team has been in flux for the past couple of seasons. Contracts of aging players have expired or have been moved. If the first 90 or so games of this season haven't been a mirage, that young, cost controlled talent seems to be coming into it's own and forming what could be the core of this team for the next 5+ years.
Agree with all of this. But none of this disputes the fact that we're bottom-half in payroll/revenue. But some others have disputed the numbers (without providing any of their own, of course, since it's SoSH)
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
5,021
A thread based on a tweet with questionable veracity (only the Braves have public revenue info so idk where that comes from) meant to denigrate the owners when the team is 11 games over .500 with nothing but positivity from the farm system? Especially when a whining thread already exists, can the mods lock this?
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
5,021
Criticizing the owners is fine, weird time for it but fine, but literally every American League playoff team is “below average” on that “graphic”. Maybe look with a discerning eye for like a single second before complaining
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Agree with all of this. But none of this disputes the fact that we're bottom-half in payroll/revenue. But some others have disputed the numbers (without providing any of their own, of course, since it's SoSH)
It wasn't designed to, but nice to see that you agree with my thought that spending these past few years might not have been the right path to take.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
477
This made me think about how I had read that last year had the lowest correlation between wins and payroll and caused me to poke around a little bit. A Google search found some interesting papers (the Google AI summary also noted that other factors that could influence this relationship includes "the number of players on the team," which sounds like a new wrinkle for Boston to exploit---what if they just stationed a fourth "outfielder" in, say, short CF and just waited to see if anyone would say anything?) ---the correlation seems pretty consistent though I've read some studies that if there is a small concentration of high salaried players increasing the payroll, that decreases the overall correlation, which makes sense. I admit that I was pretty frustrated this offseason that it didn't seem like the team was particularly active in free agency, but on the other hand a pretty high proportion of the deals that I thought the FO "should" have made have turned out badly. In some ways, I feel like being towards the top of the "revenue/payroll" chart is sort of like being towards the top of the "wins/payroll" chart---I guess it's kind of nice but it's not really the point of the game.

Sure, I think this is relevant whenever we hear rumblings about how the team "can't afford" a player but we've all seen the damage that expensive bad players can do to a team's makeup---hell, a lot of discussion about our DH hinges on his contract. Given that the FO has spent heavily in the past, I'm hopeful that they will increase the budget if it looks like the team is on track to be at least a playoff contender for a few years, but I don't want them spending just for the sake of spending, especially if the added salary only helps us move from last to fourth in the AL East. I guess we'll see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.