Let's Lay Off That Throttle

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
It’s weird how quickly the narrative on JM changed. Now, it’s supposedly clear that the Sox weren’t even interested because of his “pitch shape”? Ok.
I'd recommend reading the Speier AMA from a couple days ago if you haven't. That was the most clearly laid out reporting I've seen this winter that said they simply didn't think highly of his stuff. We know that they did have a standing offer in place (Merloni said this a few days ago, I believe it was reported elsewhere as well), so it's not like they weren't even taking his calls. But it seems clear they valued him at a certain level and didn't care to go beyond that, and he found something he liked better with AZ. Now whether the offer they gave him was set purely by their own valuation of him, by budget demands from ownership or by a combination of both, we have no idea.

https://www.reddit.com/r/redsox/comments/1boo41k/ama_im_alex_speier_a_sports_reporter_for_the/
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
Here's my speculative take: Breslow and crew agree with your position on Montgomery's "stuff" and decided early on that he was not going to be a target, especially considering the anticipated cost. Plus, no long term deals for pitchers over 30 (which I agree with!). They targeted Giolito (again, I think this is a good move!) and then the budget was set. I think there was likely hope to make a trade for another pitcher, but it didn't happen and the pitching staff as a whole has looked good this spring (I'm assuming the underlying metrics are ok to encouraging as well). Maybe they even warmed to some of the players that were going to be potentially moved in a deal.

Then, Giolito was injured and Montgomery's price tanked. My speculation/worry is that the brain trust failed to take advantage of that market to fill an obvious, acknowledged need. That may be because they refused to move off of their "stuff" concerns and it may be because they could not convince those able to adjust the budget (which, as I've argued repeatedly, is a ridiculous position to take based on revenue and the current CBT thresholds). If this is really about lukewarm "stuff" then it is a painful example of letting perfection be the enemy of the good. Montgomery has performed better than Giolito for the past three seasons and, presumably, his "stuff" could be improved by all the smart guys who have joined the Sox this season. So, my logic is that the Sox failed to be flexible/assertive enough when an obvious opportunity to improve the team (without hamstringing the team) became available.

[Big caveat- maybe they offered Montgomery the same deal as Snell and he declined, in which case I'm way off base.]
I think you generally have a pretty reasonable take here, but this part I'm not so sure on. Given how we've seen them be pretty intentional with their targeting (and roster decisions), I don't think you can just run any old guy through the magical Bailey machine and transform him. It seems like they have specific characteristics they're going after to work from as a baseline.

Then again, they also just extended the guy with the worst + grades on the staff, so who knows? Presumably his youth plays into that significantly.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,332
Miami (oh, Miami!)
If looked at through that lens, literally every move made (or not made) this off-season is logical and makes total sense.
You also have to be able to analyze how things flow through time if you want to make guesses at their thought process.

At the beginning of the off-season they were interested in acquiring YY, in no small part because he was likely to be productive in '25, '26, '27, etc. I.e., he was not seen as a 1 year rental/GFIN acquisition. I'm not sure any other SP on the market had that potential for long-term production. But he also gives you a 2024 starter.

When that stalled or evaporated or they were priced out, there was no "B option" version of YY on the FA market.

So they went to Giolito because they liked his upside and sold him on his "fixability." But it was essentially a 1 year deal if he was healthy/productive (assuming no extension/resigning.) Giolito wasn't signed as a last-man standing - they plucked him relatively early, but not before exploring YY. He was a 2024 band-aid with a possible long term fit. Meaning he filled the immediate need for a SP that YY would have filled, but didn't tie the team's hands going forward. Call it a mini-GFIN/Stopgap for the season. (They're probably not going to field a rotation of those guys, but there's room for 1.)

After/during the Giolito signing, there were rumblings they were looking to trade for young, cost-controlled starting pitching, but the price was high. (Nevertheless they acquired some MiL pitching prospects via trade over the whole off-season.) Much of that was rumor, but again, the goal, if we can infer it from the names that were leaked/speculated on, is long term competitiveness. So they chose to wait on that piece.

After Giolito was injured, it seemed likely he'd be locked in (in terms of salary) for 2025 but might/might not take the field or be effective. So now instead of a short-term competitive FA-to-be pitcher in the 2024 rotation, they have one for 2025. Meaning, Giolito is now filling the stopgap slot in the future - it's not open.

So where does Montgomery fit in all that? Pretty much nowhere.

I mean, if you think their goal was to blindly grab the best pitcher they could at the moment, regardless of future cost, he's an answer to that strategy.

If you think the goal was to obtain good cost-controlled pitchers (with a stopgap FA pitcher if necessary) Montgomery on a long-term contract for hefty money is not the answer. He is, in fact, what you want to avoid - unless you can get him for a very reasonable rate, or with very favorable contract terms to hedge against non-production.

***

There's a separate question as to whether Montgomery could have been acquired during ST on a 1 year deal as a 2024 Giolito replacement. But we see he took what was pretty much a 2 year deal to pitch for a team that's favored to go deep in the post-season this year, so no, likely not on the table. Maybe that argument also applies to some other late-available FA pitchers.

But it's also possible they decided Whitlock was improved/healthy enough to be a SP they could acquire without paying cash or prospects for.
 
Last edited:

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
602
Obvious caveats of 1) Heyman is basically a Boras employee; 2) I'm glad to see Boras get a little of a comeuppance; 3) yes contracts - and revenue - have gotten way out of hand, etc, etc; 4) we have NO IDEA what Monty was offered or turned down.

In this one specific snarky opinion, I agree totally with Heyman. When Sonny Gray gets 3/$75m, Eduardo Rodriguez gets 4/$80m and Tyler Glasnow gets 4/$110m (or however one wants to look at his guaranteed $130m ish dollars), I think it's absolute lunacy that Montgomery didn't get at least 4/$90m or something similar. Could he have been offered that and turned it down - sure, I suppose. But I don't look at the Gray and Rodriguez deals and think "what the eff are those teams doing" (I do with Glasnow, I think that's going to age very poorly for LAD, or at least would for any team that isn't LAD since they apparently have no budget at all).

I look at the Red Sox probably not offering Montgomery something like 4/$90m (if they had, I think we'd have heard about it) and think "what the eff is that team doing?"

Or - put another way - I think analytics are good and helpful as a tool, but I do think the game has gone a bit too far into the "what should have happened" as opposed to focusing on the actual results. Especially when one realizes that Monty and Glasnow are basically the same age (Monty is about 8 months older). It's like the game went from analytics not mattering at all (call it pre-Moneyball) to results not mattering at all (call it the last 3 to 4 seasons). Or as Theo put it, examples of "intellectualism gone too far in the game."

https://nypost.com/2023/03/17/theo-epstein-intellectualism-went-too-far-in-baseball/

Referencing an interview with Epstein behind the Athletic paywall.
Great post. In the ever-shifting sands of the analytics world, I can't help thinking that at some point someone might say "Jeez, I think we just figured out why Montgomery, in spite of his apparently inferior stuff, has been vastly better than average at getting guys out for the last 600+ innings..."
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,201
You also have to be able to analyze how things flow through time if you want to make guesses at their thought process.

...

But it's also possible they decided Whitlock was improved/healthy enough to be a SP they could acquire without paying cash or prospects for.
Agree totally on the - through time - aspect of your post.

A quibble I do have is that it was pretty well sourced that they were trying to make trades to address the rotation long term before the Yamamoto or Giolito signings. Doesn't change the fact that it wasn't able to come to fruition, but they were looking to do that first - at least it certainly seemed that way. Once that couldn't happen (and YY couldn't happen) they pivoted. (Source on Breslow talking about making trades about a month before these moves: https://theathletic.com/5112718/2023/12/04/red-sox-trades-prospects-pitching/)

I should have said it, but I've always maintained that it's possible Breslow decided: what we have is plenty good enough; as opposed to the other side of the equation: what we have is so mediocre that it isn't worth extending to add to on the short term.



What I personally THINK happened is that they believed their prospects would get them someone like "Dylan Cease" (I have no idea to pretend what specific player they targeted) which is why Breslow always talked about making trades for them. Then he found out they weren't. (The Speier note from the Mariners is the one that comes to mind).

You then had the YY bidding get to levels they weren't comfortable with (and to be fair, I can absolutely see the logic in saying "we're not offering $375m to someone that hasn't thrown an MLB pitch as that is what it might take to get him to consider our offer over LAD's). If they HAD been able to add two top half of the rotation starters, that is when it would have made more sense to add pieces like Teoscar Hernandez or Jorge Soler. Without adding them, it made no sense.

Which is why they decided to trade Sale and pivoted to someone like Giolito as a replacement for Sale (I think the two deals coming in such rapid succession - Giolito news broke in the evening of 12/29; Sale was traded literally the next day) when they knew that deal was "done" with Atlanta, and hopefully then sell of Giolito in July the same way they would have Sale if the offer hadn't presented itself before hand.

In other words - once their plans to acquire two top half SPs were blocked, they in essence waived the white flag on 2024 - which I don't blame them on (put two top half of the rotation SPs on this team, and I'd predicting 94 wins. Without them, I'm predicting 74.)




Also, just to be clear, even though I think the 2024 team is going to be pretty bad, I'm actually a lot more excited for this season on Opening Day than I have been at any point on opening day since 2019, and I think it's going to be a lot more fun to watch than 2022 or 2023.

Just going back two years so as not to rehash the 2020 off season, looking at the roster, I assumed 2022 and 2023 would be bad. You had track records on players going back multiple seasons showing players in decline or where injuries should have been assumed as the norm. (They weren't young, they were old, broken down, and pretty much "known" commodities that weren't very good.)

This team isn't like that. I think the floor is lower for 2024, but I think the ceiling is higher.

Case in point 2023 to 2024:

C - Same.
1b - full season of Casas, no worries of them trying something stupid like platooning him with Bobby freaking Dalbec. Much more fun.
2b - The 75 games of Arroyo and then whatever he was replaced with vs Vaughn Grissom. This is much more interesting.
3b - Same.
SS - Hernandez vs Story. I think Story is over paid. i'd rather have Bogaerts. I'd also FAR rather have Story than Hernandez, Pablo Reyes and whatever else and that isn't close. Much more interesting.
OF and DH - was Yoshida, Duvall, Verdugo and Turner. Is now Duran, Rafaela, O'Neill (for 75 games) and then Abreu and Yoshida (outside shot of Anthony after said 75 games from O'Neill). This is much more interesting.
Rotation - Kluber, 15 games of Paxton, 15 games of Sale, Bello, Pivetta vs Bello, Pivetta, Crawford, Houck, Whitlock - at least this is the unknown. While I don't think either are likely, I think it's MUCH more likely to find 2 good SPs from Crawford, Houck and Whitlock than it is to find them from the mid to late 30s versions of Kluber, Sale and Paxton.
Closer - same.
Rest of the bullpen - I think they're pretty much all fungible. Which, I also think that the entire Blue Jays bullpen outside of Romano is pretty fungible. To be clear, this isn't a shot at the Sox. It's always been my stance on "ex closer" bullpens. The Sox bullpen has just as much chance of being good as that of lets say Kansas City's AND the Blue Jays.

The 2022 and 2023 teams were poorly put together, "known" and boring. At least this team is "unknown" which is more interesting than "meh", at least in my opinion.



.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,834
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Great post. In the ever-shifting sands of the analytics world, I can't help thinking that at some point someone might say "Jeez, I think we just figured out why Montgomery, in spite of his apparently inferior stuff, has been vastly better than average at getting guys out for the last 600+ innings..."
I think baseball management has shifted entirely into a risk-avoidance scheme. Execs are so terrified that they will spend money on the wrong guy that they won't spend money on the right guys because they can't understand what makes the right guys successful. The Dodgers these days are the only team that doesn't seem to subscribe to that model in any way.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,201
I think baseball management has shifted entirely into a risk-avoidance scheme. Execs are so terrified that they will spend money on the wrong guy that they won't spend money on the right guys because they can't understand what makes the right guys successful. The Dodgers these days are the only team that doesn't seem to subscribe to that model in any way.
To be fair, Houston and Texas say "hi", but I agree overall in terms of the landscape of the game.

Which is another reason I really like Breslow (just like I really like Chris Young in Texas).

They're freaking brilliant at a level which is roughly 1,000x greater than what I possess (which is good - they understand analytics and how they can impact the game, especially over the course of the regular season and aren't going to completely disregard them). They also played the game of baseball, and realize that it's played by human beings and not simply handing out titles based on computer models (also good).

It's why I continue to bask in the glow of Theo Epstein - someone both intelligent enough to realize the benefits of something but also with enough self-awareness to look at something and say "it's gone too far." Based on 4 years of decision making, I don't think Bloom possessed that (he might learn it, who knows). I don't think someone like David Stearns necessarily does either.

I think someone like Chris Young, Breslow or Sam Fuld do. But it's still going to take time for Breslow to dig out of what he inherited - just like it did Chris Young.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,332
Miami (oh, Miami!)
What I personally THINK happened is that they believed their prospects would get them someone like "Dylan Cease" (I have no idea to pretend what specific player they targeted) which is why Breslow always talked about making trades for them. Then he found out they weren't. (The Speier note from the Mariners is the one that comes to mind).
Well, it's just a cost/benefit analysis there. Mayer plus Teel plus Anthony would have gotten them Cease - for '24 and '25, and then he's a FA. But that's a bad trade. So whatever was tossed around between the Sox any other club was also in the bad trade bucket from the Sox POV - whatever that might mean in terms of actual prospects exchanged.

Overall though I don't think it's really that they wildly pivoted from plan to plan, but that they stuck with their goal of acquiring young cost-controlled players with an eye toward their next window of competition. YY fits. Trying to trade for a starter under control through '27 or so fits. Extending Bello fits. Trading for Grissom fits. Trading for Fitts et al to stock the farm fits.

Then you've got short term augments: Giolito fits for '24. (And now for '25.)

Maybe you add a Hernandez-bat as a short term augment if everything is clicking, but you also want enough slots open for the younger players to try out and break in. (OR maybe if you can get lucky lock up a rare prime young FA for reasonable money for a long time. . .why not? That's your longer term fix right here.)

And I think that's where we might most diverge in guessing at the Sox's strategy. I think in general you don't want to fill "developing player" slots with 2-3 year expensive FA solutions. (Unless you're in a GFIN mode where you're going to lose control of a bunch of players in a couple of years.)

But moderate FA signings sort of puts you on the FA cycle we want to get off of. I mean, a "Duvall/Hernandez" type may outhit Abreu this year, but what's the opportunity cost here? Duvall's on the team for 24, Abreu is in AAA, and you've got to try to break Abreu in during the '25 season? At some point you don't want 2 or 3 of those guys on the team.

So it's not maybe a matter of "compete or punt" this year (to be replicated next year) but more a matter of "only acquire if this guy is a plus for us in years 2, 3 and 4." And part of that plus is the opportunity cost of developing your own starters.


***
All this is not to say I think they're doing things perfectly, or might have benefitted this year had they made different choices.

Or even that they could have rolled the short-term augment dice more than they did. But I think they did roll that die with a guy, and that guy was Giolito. And to a lesser extent, O'Neill.
 

Cassvt2023

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 17, 2023
533
I have a quick ask: Could we change the name of this thread to something a bit more upbeat on Opening Day? There is some great conversations and insight going on in here and I like reading people's thoughts. The title however, is just a reminder of Werner's idiocy like 3 months ago now, and it's simply time to move on. Any ideas for a better thread name?
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,648
Row 14
I have a quick ask: Could we change the name of this thread to something a bit more upbeat on Opening Day? There is some great conversations and insight going on in here and I like reading people's thoughts. The title however, is just a reminder of Werner's idiocy like 3 months ago now, and it's simply time to move on. Any ideas for a better thread name?
4th in Revenue! - The 2024 Red Sox
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
921
I think you generally have a pretty reasonable take here, but this part I'm not so sure on. Given how we've seen them be pretty intentional with their targeting (and roster decisions), I don't think you can just run any old guy through the magical Bailey machine and transform him. It seems like they have specific characteristics they're going after to work from as a baseline.

Then again, they also just extended the guy with the worst + grades on the staff, so who knows? Presumably his youth plays into that significantly.
I think assessing "stuff" and pitch shapes and other specific objective measurements is really helpful when deciding who to draft or which under-performing player should be targeted. For example, Giolito was really bad the second half of last year and not great the year before, but there could be adjustments to bring him back to his performance levels from prior years.
That is a radically different situation than Montgomery, who has been good the last three years. Is the concern that his "stuff" was really good the last three years but will now deteriorate? Three full seasons is a big sample size. Again, I get the concern that he might not age well over the next six seasons, but I see no reason to believe he won't be at least 90% of the pitcher he's been the last three years, and I would hope that our pitching brainstaff could coax a bit more performance out of any MLB pitcher.

By all means, use sophisticated metrics to assess prospects and find unpolished gems but measuring "stuff" should not have been the reason to skip the opportunity to sign a viable #2 pitcher to an extremely team friendly deal.
 

CR67dream

blue devils forevah!
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
7,553
I'm going home
I have a quick ask: Could we change the name of this thread to something a bit more upbeat on Opening Day? There is some great conversations and insight going on in here and I like reading people's thoughts. The title however, is just a reminder of Werner's idiocy like 3 months ago now, and it's simply time to move on. Any ideas for a better thread name?
Eh, I think there is a lot of legitimate criticism of the ownership group, and I think it helps to have a couple of threads to vent that stuff so the true baseball stuff can be mostly separate. And they did indeed really lay off that throttle. The only question is how that will work out for them. Changing a title doesn't really change the reality.

As far as the good conversation here, I agree there is quite a bit of good baseball content that could be elsewhere. I think the real answer is to scan the board for specific stuff, and if it's not there, start new threads. It's also not the end of the world to have some real conversation and debate among all the frustration, and breaking stuff out would completely wreck any continuity this thread has.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I think they didn't sign Monty for financial reasons. If, in December, they could have either signed Monty or Giolito to their respective deals, I'd guess they would have picked Monty. But it's plausible that, despite the results the past couple of years, they saw better stuff and more potential in Giolito.
Sure, or that Giolito was not going to hold out for top dollar like Monty was. I believe in December the rumors had Monty looking for 7/210 or something? We have seen some of this come down to timing before, i.e. with Wacha and Eovaldi only dropping their prices later, after the Sox had moved on. Given how that worked out, though, it's possible the late-winter market is the new inefficiency. Like Belichick waiting until after the draft to sign guys.

Also, to respond to the "plan" chatter, what if the plan is simply to increase the organization's pitching talent level -- its greatest, glaring weakness -- and the only way to do that at anything approaching a reasonable cost was to acquire guys who aren't really in the right-now window? The cost for immediate contributor-type SPs went skyward, even on the trade side, so Breslow is waiting it out and picking up arms for later? The one thing he hasn't done is made bad value transactions, with the exception (for now) of Giolito, though even that came with some long term possibilities, i.e. if he got fixed and went back to being a 120 ERA+ type pitcher with a lot of miles left on his arm, and he was very open to signing here longer term as a result.

I guess you could liken it to waiting for your pitch before swinging. The risk is that you watch some marginal strikes go by and take the K. But the opportunity cost there wasn't great, and the next time up might be different. [the analogy breaks down between at bats, which keep coming, and transactions, which you have a limit on, but anyway I do think Breslow's MO was not to rush into any risky deals.]
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
Sure, or that Giolito was not going to hold out for top dollar like Monty was. I believe in December the rumors had Monty looking for 7/210 or something? We have seen some of this come down to timing before, i.e. with Wacha and Eovaldi only dropping their prices later, after the Sox had moved on. Given how that worked out, though, it's possible the late-winter market is the new inefficiency. Like Belichick waiting until after the draft to sign guys.
Oh, of course. But I'm suggesting that even if Monty would have taken the one year plus option deal in December, it's possible that Breslow still would have wanted Giolito.

What I would like to know is what is the best offer that Monty got at any point in the process? Did he ever even get the E-Rod deal? How much of this situation was Boras fucking up and how much was MLB saying "yeah, you've done great the past couple of years, but we still kinda don't believe it." Because I think there's at last some of both going on.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Oh, of course. But I'm suggesting that even if Monty would have taken the one year plus option deal in December, it's possible that Breslow still would have wanted Giolito.

What I would like to know is what is the best offer that Monty got at any point in the process? Did he ever even get the E-Rod deal? How much of this situation was Boras fucking up and how much was MLB saying "yeah, you've done great the past couple of years, but we still kinda don't believe it." Because I think there's at last some of both going on.
Agree, which is the all-metrics argument. It's interesting. Monty vs Snell is a great contrast for this purpose. There will always be guys who just seem to get outs. The question is, are those guys getting completely overlooked, or is it that they aren't expected to age well? Like yeah, that can work for quite a while, but any loss of arm strength and things fall apart?
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
I think assessing "stuff" and pitch shapes and other specific objective measurements is really helpful when deciding who to draft or which under-performing player should be targeted. For example, Giolito was really bad the second half of last year and not great the year before, but there could be adjustments to bring him back to his performance levels from prior years.
That is a radically different situation than Montgomery, who has been good the last three years. Is the concern that his "stuff" was really good the last three years but will now deteriorate? Three full seasons is a big sample size. Again, I get the concern that he might not age well over the next six seasons, but I see no reason to believe he won't be at least 90% of the pitcher he's been the last three years, and I would hope that our pitching brainstaff could coax a bit more performance out of any MLB pitcher.

By all means, use sophisticated metrics to assess prospects and find unpolished gems but measuring "stuff" should not have been the reason to skip the opportunity to sign a viable #2 pitcher to an extremely team friendly deal.
To be clear, when I'm talking about "stuff" here I don't mean "he has a nasty curveball," I'm referring to the Driveline Stuff+ family of metrics: https://library.fangraphs.com/pitching/stuff-location-and-pitching-primer/
Montgomery has certainly had a lot of success over the last three years, but he's never been highly regarded by those models in that time.

This isn't supposition on my part: we have direct quotes from both players and staff saying they're using this data heavily. Also they hired Kyle Boddy, founder of Driveline, as a special assistant to Breslow. They have very clearly bought into these metrics, for better or for worse.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
  • Sam Kennedy hopeful about finalizing 1+ more extensions in the coming days. Multiple conversations are ongoing.
  • Ticket sales down about 5%
  • Sponsorships up
  • Reiterates that there are budget parameters but also there's a willingness to stretch those as needed, specifically mentioning the trade deadline and future seasons. Seems to indicate that there are additional budget considerations this year in particular.
  • Part of the development around Fenway is in hopes of improving all star game bids in the future.

View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1773322897819574275
 

MFYankees

New Member
Jul 20, 2017
554
  • Sam Kennedy hopeful about finalizing 1+ more extensions in the coming days. Multiple conversations are ongoing.
  • Ticket sales down about 5%
  • Sponsorships up
  • Reiterates that there are budget parameters but also there's a willingness to stretch those as needed, specifically mentioning the trade deadline and future seasons. Seems to indicate that there are additional budget considerations this year in particular.
  • Part of the development around Fenway is in hopes of improving all star game bids in the future.

View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1773322897819574275
I'll believe it when I see it. And, if you are truly spending $ to improve an All-Star game bid instead of spending it to improve the team, then screw you and FO's "Fenway Experience"
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
925
Boston
  • Sam Kennedy hopeful about finalizing 1+ more extensions in the coming days. Multiple conversations are ongoing.
  • Ticket sales down about 5%
  • Sponsorships up
  • Reiterates that there are budget parameters but also there's a willingness to stretch those as needed, specifically mentioning the trade deadline and future seasons. Seems to indicate that there are additional budget considerations this year in particular.
  • Part of the development around Fenway is in hopes of improving all star game bids in the future.

View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1773322897819574275
Its a bit hard to believe ticket sales are only off 5%. Tickets for Fenway opening day are still available. I cant remember a time when tickets for Fenway; 's opening day were still available when the season started. They used to sell out in December.

Edit: I suppose it could be gross $ volume, which would imply something more like 10% off a seat/capacity basis.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,607
Gallows Hill
I'll believe it when I see it. And, if you are truly spending $ to improve an All-Star game bid instead of spending it to improve the team, then screw you and FO's "Fenway Experience"
I see the last two bullet points as confirming that the real estate development costs are coming out this year’s payroll instead of out of the profit margin. Which I suspected all along.
 

MFYankees

New Member
Jul 20, 2017
554
I see the last two bullet points as confirming that the real estate development costs are coming out this year’s payroll instead of out of the profit margin. Which I suspected all along.
Agreed, and although I may have no rational right to feel angry and betrayed, I do.
 

Tim Salmon

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,300
Agreed, and although I may have no rational right to feel angry and betrayed, I do.
You have just as much right as a consumer to feel angry and betrayed as the Red Sox have to run their team like venture capitalists. It is what it is, but your emotions are still valid.
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,443
Overland Park, KS
Lol. we can likely do better than that ;)
How about 'Thank God for the shitty Pats season of 2023 or we would be the biggest losers in Boston sports'? 'Or since 2012, we only finish last in the AL East half the time'? I kid but 2013 and 2018 seem far away when watching this crew.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,623
Guys, I for one am so excited that sponsorships are up!

I expect the team to unfurl a banner on Opening Day. Sponsorship Flags Fly Forever! (Or at least until their contracts don’t lapse.)
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,779
AZ
Guys, I for one am so excited that sponsorships are up!

I expect the team to unfurl a banner on Opening Day. Sponsorship Flags Fly Forever! (Or at least until their contracts don’t lapse.)
I like what they are doing with the "official" categories. You notice that they are narrowing them. Bigelow, for example, has been demoted to the official "hot tea" of the Boston Red Sox. I think the opportunities for the cold teas are exciting. I look forward to the announcement.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,623
I like what they are doing with the "official" categories. You notice that they are narrowing them. Bigelow, for example, has been demoted to the official "hot tea" of the Boston Red Sox. I think the opportunities for the cold teas are exciting. I look forward to the announcement.
Maybe they can focus it down even more: Official Diet Ice Tea bestowed to Lipton.

I can’t wait to start that thread, “WE GOT LIPTON EVERYONE!”
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,198
Missoula, MT
I like what they are doing with the "official" categories. You notice that they are narrowing them. Bigelow, for example, has been demoted to the official "hot tea" of the Boston Red Sox. I think the opportunities for the cold teas are exciting. I look forward to the announcement.

Like Twisted Teas? Only $15 at any concourse vendor or $18 from an aisle vendor. The Fenway Experience!
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,648
Row 14
  • Sam Kennedy hopeful about finalizing 1+ more extensions in the coming days. Multiple conversations are ongoing.
  • Ticket sales down about 5%
  • Sponsorships up
  • Reiterates that there are budget parameters but also there's a willingness to stretch those as needed, specifically mentioning the trade deadline and future seasons. Seems to indicate that there are additional budget considerations this year in particular.
  • Part of the development around Fenway is in hopes of improving all star game bids in the future.

View: https://twitter.com/ChrisCotillo/status/1773322897819574275
Holy shit, they are creating the ultimate cop out, "Players that want to play in Boston." It is genius in its own way. Going to make Boston try to pay market rate? Clearly the player hates Boston. Creates an us vs them and excuses being cheap and making poor decisions.

Sam Kennedy really does think the average Boston fan is an idiot.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,779
AZ
Like Twisted Teas? Only $15 at any concourse vendor or $18 from an aisle vendor. The Fenway Experience!
Twisted Tea, the official cold tea with a malt base and an ABV between 4.7 and 5.2 percent of the Boston Red Sox.(TM)
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
5,130
Maybe they can focus it down even more: Official Diet Ice Tea bestowed to Lipton.

I can’t wait to start that thread, “WE GOT LIPTON EVERYONE!”
If the team's doing well at the deadline we may even sign regular Lipton, but Diet's really been performing well this spring and we're excited to give it the opportunity to seize the role full time.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,607
Gallows Hill
Guys, I for one am so excited that sponsorships are up!

I expect the team to unfurl a banner on Opening Day. Sponsorship Flags Fly Forever! (Or at least until their contracts don’t lapse.)
Which is funny he said that, because one of his biggest sponsors told a group of about 25 of us a couple weeks ago that if the team was operating like they are now, his company wouldn’t have signed a 10 year naming rights agreement that they currently have, and he went on to say that he doesn’t see them renewing it unless they start committing to a winning team again.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,779
AZ
The timing is unfortunate. I wish this bombshell that we are hopeful to get an all star game in the future could have been out there with Scott Boras a few days ago. Oh well. Next time?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,623
If the team's doing well at the deadline we may even sign regular Lipton, but Diet's really been performing well this spring and we're excited to give it the opportunity to seize the role full time.
Diet has been on Keith Law's Non-Pop Prospect List for a long time--almost since he was a sprout on a tree. After all the brewing and extracting (not to mention not taking a short cut and taking artificial sweeteners) I'm so excited that he's finally able to bring this pitcher to the Bigs--dude isn't watered down but has ice in his veins. I won't lie, after all that he's gone through it's going to be dusty in the house when that kid finally pours it all out and runs the table.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,193
I look forward to a sarcastic new thread and/or pithy comment every time a mild bit of good news develops this season.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,849
I look forward to a sarcastic new thread and/or pithy comment every time a mild bit of good news develops this season.
You too??!?!? I know in five, ten years time, I'll look back on the 2023-24 off-season and a gentle tear will crest my cheek as I think about the all the gloriously overwrought parsing of quotes, the beating of dead horses, the doom, and most of all the gloom. Frankly, baseball sucks. But message boarding? That's the good shit right there. Hopefully, the Sox get swept this weekend and Sam Kennedy says something dumb by Monday because I've got a 2000 word post in the can and if that goes to waste my season will be irrevocably ruined.
 

HfxBob

New Member
Nov 13, 2005
602
As a new member, I see that the Positive People vs. Negative People thing is pretty big here too...
 

Overlord

New Member
Nov 3, 2013
9
Perhaps there is an opportunity for FSG to explore the sponsorship market for pitchforks and torches?

Thank you; I just needed to vent before the first pitch is thrown.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,604
I see the last two bullet points as confirming that the real estate development costs are coming out this year’s payroll instead of out of the profit margin. Which I suspected all along.
Sam Kennedy has totally confused stakeholders with shareholders when it comes to messaging. He really needs to not be a major public voice for the Red Sox.
 
Last edited:

The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2006
7,951
SS Botany Bay
Sam Kennedy has totally confused stakeholders from shareholders when it comes to messaging.
He went to Trinity, what do you expect?

This very old passage about Kennedy from "In the Ballpark" perhaps provides insights about him and explains a lot about what he highlighted in his recent interview, as well as the kind of things he seems to prioritize:

After finishing his third summer as an intern with the Yankees, Sam took a job in radio, first selling Yankees baseball
on WABC, and then selling sports sponsorships on a sports network, WFAN Sports Radio in New York
. Although he
had daily contact with professional sports in New York, he was dissatisfied: "Each day it became more evident that I
did not belong working at a radio station, and I wished I could be back in baseball." He got his big break on the field
at Shea Stadium, where he met a former high school teammate, Theo Epstein, now the media relations manager for
the San Diego Padres. "As we talked about his job, I knew I would do whatever it took to get back into baseball, and
then Theo mentioned that the Padres might have an opening." Four months later, Sam landed the Padres job account
executive, coporate development. He now sells in-stadium signage, promotional days, and television sponsorships at
Jack Murphy Stadium.
"I feel so fortunate to have made it back into baseball. This is where I want to be. One day I
will look back to my days as a new intern in the Yankees ticket office and remember it as the place where it all
started"
This is who he is.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,986
Isle of Plum
He went to Trinity, what do you expect?

This very old passage about Kennedy from "In the Ballpark" perhaps provides insights about him and explains a lot about what he highlighted in his recent interview, as well as the kind of things he seems to prioritize:



This is who he is.
Interesting, really a sales guy through and through. Difference is he’s selling Red Sox trinkets and baubles, not the Yankees or Padres at the moment. Think he’s a Sox fan, not that it matters when you just need to hit your quota for promotion.

His reaction to rejection, whether from various prospective.players or GMs (if they don’t wanna be here screw em!), not to mention fans or media, reminds me of some hammerhead Sales Reps I’ve worked with.

Not saying it can’t be successful, clearly he’s now CEO, but as has been mentioned there’s a potential Peter principle playing out here. Going after fans and media that don’t drink the Kool aid, confessing to budget cuts only after season ticket renewals, and generally gaslighting everything is a tactic I usually ascribe to loser sales managers.

Like I said, individual hammers can make it big (hammer doesn’t mean dumb!) but without the ability to do anything but hammer a message it’s hard to keep that managers job you got essentially only because you had individual success selling.
 
Last edited: