McAdam: “Full Throttle” may mean business as usual

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,067
To the bolded, no of course not but we also have no idea what his market truly is. If he gets 8 years then I’ll be glad we didn’t give him that too but we have no idea if he’ll get that. But at some point the team’s going to have to pay to play.

edit: also, what research should McAdam be doing on the market? Looking at what other reporters mention which are largely agent wishlists?
The problem again is the term “industry source” in his reporting is vague beyond belief. that source could be Bloom Or someone from the NYY.
In other words its not anyone Connected to the sox.
and its not like reporters have used “team source” before. Or even an agent for a source. So the fact its only an “industry source” makes it worthless imo.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,335
The problem again is the term “industry source” in his reporting is vague beyond belief. that source could be Bloom Or someone from the NYY.
In other words its not anyone Connected to the sox.
and its not like reporters have used “team source” before. Or even an agent for a source. So the fact its only an “industry source” makes it worthless imo.
If the industry source is an agent of a player the Red Sox have been in contact with that source might actually have a valid, if incomplete, idea of the Red Sox view of the market and therefore budget might be. So we should take the source with a grain of salt but can’t dismiss it entirely. Again, this is an opinion piece, but McAdam is not a shit stirrer.
 

Theodoric

New Member
Jun 13, 2022
22
The last few seasons have led me to lurk here for Breakfast With Gazza more than the main board, so I'll put this in football terms.

It seems to me that FSG are in the same place as late-stage Arsene Wenger. Once Arsenal had the stadium mostly paid off, and there was money again, Arsene seemed mystified at the current transfer prices, like a grandpa mystified by the current price of milk. FSG seems the same. Absolutely brilliant doing Moneyball strategy in the 2000's with a vastly bigger budget than the A's. But now totally at sea navigating a new financial realm.
 

pk1627

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2003
2,602
Boston
Ive no particular reason to doubt this accuracy. It is also the type of thing we want to hear in the moment.
I doubt the accuracy because a few hours later X signed for $100 million more than the Sox offered. His source hadn’t a clue.

And it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if the industry source cited in today’s piece has any clue as well. Let’s be honest here: McAdam mailed this one in.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
6,886
The back of your computer
It seems to me that FSG are in the same place as late-stage Arsene Wenger. Once Arsenal had the stadium mostly paid off, and there was money again, Arsene seemed mystified at the current transfer prices, like a grandpa mystified by the current price of milk. FSG seems the same. Absolutely brilliant doing Moneyball strategy in the 2000's with a vastly bigger budget than the A's. But now totally at sea navigating a new financial realm.
What do you mean by navigating a new financial realm? Should FSG be looking to spend, without limits, to compete? Or should FSG be looking to spend enough to compete but still turn a profit each year? There is no way that Boston will compete with the Dodgers, just as there was no way they competed with the MFY at the height of Steinbrenner's spending. To think otherwise is crazy.

I'm not saying that ownership is doing a good job here, but the GM (Bloom, Breslow, etc) is generally given a maximum budget for player personnel for each year or multiyear period. Exceptions are generally made for certain players, up to specified limits. Breslow probably had ownership assent to spend a total of $300mm on Yamamoto, outside of the normal budget.

To put it in Premier League terms, the Red Sox are Tottenham/Newcastle, not Chelsea/ManU.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,306
Portland
I doubt the accuracy because a few hours later X signed for $100 million more than the Sox offered. His source hadn’t a clue.

And it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if the industry source cited in today’s piece has any clue as well. Let’s be honest here: McAdam mailed this one in.
Its like Nick Cafardo left him JP Ricciardi's phone # in his will as well as his column template for this one. Love him otherwise.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,213
Gallows Hill
The last few seasons have led me to lurk here for Breakfast With Gazza more than the main board, so I'll put this in football terms.

It seems to me that FSG are in the same place as late-stage Arsene Wenger. Once Arsenal had the stadium mostly paid off, and there was money again, Arsene seemed mystified at the current transfer prices, like a grandpa mystified by the current price of milk. FSG seems the same. Absolutely brilliant doing Moneyball strategy in the 2000's with a vastly bigger budget than the A's. But now totally at sea navigating a new financial realm.

Great post. I think I more direct comparison would be how some older, hall of fame level sports executives that “pick the groceries” lose their ability to equate talent to the increased dollars of the current day (look no further than Foxboro to find a great example), however I could see how this could happen at the ownership level as well.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,213
Gallows Hill
I doubt the accuracy because a few hours later X signed for $100 million more than the Sox offered. His source hadn’t a clue.

And it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if the industry source cited in today’s piece has any clue as well. Let’s be honest here: McAdam mailed this one in.

To me this screams of a Boras plant to try to get the Red Sox to up some offers to his clients.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,431
I do wonder how long it will be before FSG brings up the idea of a new stadium. While I understand this is a notion many will dismiss you have to wonder if the changing economics of the game make a new stadium a must if the fans truly expect the Red Sox to spend at LAD/MFY/Mets levels in the future. Have they maxed what they can economically with Fenway and NESN?
That's not going to happen. They just announced a gigantic redevelopment around Fenway. Why would they do that if they were about to demand a new stadium?
 

greek_gawd_of_walks

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2009
9,226
Wiscansin, by way of Attleboro
Can we let maybe, idk, 25 percent of the winter’s free agents sign before losing our minds? This is completely embarrassing. There are many, many paths to take.
Completely embarrassing, huh? Interesting. Strong take, bud.

It's completely in-line with how the organization has operated the last four years or so. They're in "prove it" mode to most of the fan base. Patience is wearing thin for many.

They haven't developed high end pitching; routinely had bottom third pitching staffs based on ERA and WHIP during this stretch. They haven't been attracting free agents who have a desire to win (because they haven't been winning-- strange, right?) and have been relegated to working the margins to sign guys who the market squeezes out. It's not unrealistic that the perception of the team is a big hindrance and overpaying for talent is the only way they will improve through free agency.

I'm not saying spending blindly is wise, but adding legitimate rotation arms is not a wild ass want. They need help.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,747
I doubt the accuracy because a few hours later X signed for $100 million more than the Sox offered. His source hadn’t a clue.

And it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if the industry source cited in today’s piece has any clue as well. Let’s be honest here: McAdam mailed this one in.

How about it was 100% accurate but reflective of how delusional the powers that be at Fenway were/are about the team and the market for talent? Your derision of McAdam seems totally misplaced.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
47,067
If the industry source is an agent of a player the Red Sox have been in contact with that source might actually have a valid, if incomplete, idea of the Red Sox view of the market and therefore budget might be. So we should take the source with a grain of salt but can’t dismiss it entirely. Again, this is an opinion piece, but McAdam is not a shit stirrer.
He would have mentioned the source being an agent if that was case. Which he has done in the past.
Industry source pretty much seems like a catch all term when its not a team (ie sox) or agent
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,297
Regardless of whether the article is accurate, you have the the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees and probably at least Philadelphia all in positions to set the market for top tier free agents. The Red Sox clearly aren't involved in that space, except as a supplier of the talent - they are more of a Nordstrom's Rack type of shopper.

The owners of this team owe the fans nothing after all the joy they have provided however that's in the past.
Pure BS

Will hedge funds stop trying to make profit in 2024 because they made profit on 2023?

what happened in the past (winning WS titles) is irrelevant in relation to trying to win another one.
Perhaps the owners won’t take it for granted sometime in the future that some fans have the viewpoint you stated

The top ticket and parking prices and $30/month for NESN360 should allow for the ownership to put some effort to win a 5th one and not stand pay on having 4.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,391
This is NOT to dump on McAdam but merely to point out two important things:

1. He has never really been the type to break news about the club’s signings, etc. Really, there are no beat reporters in Boston who are regularly able to do that anymore, especially since Lucchino left the team. The Sox don’t really leak anymore, as even some of the team’s fiercest critics around here will acknowledge. But even when selective leaks were a part of their MO, McAdam was not really a guy they’d use. Speaking more broadly, the national reporters are more plugged into Sox scoops, because they tend to get them via player agents that they have relationships with. If you’re sourcing depends on Sox organization contacts, these have been lean years. And, again, when they weren’t, it wasn’t was McAdam who was delivering this kind of info.

2. McAdam is likely in his sixties now. He never made it to the Globe, had a time at the Herald and EEI, but is no longer with even those orgs. He’s been on the media periphery for a while now and only recently joined MassLive, which must have felt like quite the lifeline. None of that is to say that he didn’t deserve better. He’s certainly more talented than, say, Peter Abraham. But however he found himself in this spot, he’s sort on the back nine of his career and could certainly use a couple of attention wins in his new gig. I was a little surprised to see how thinly sourced his piece was today—one conversation with one industry executive—and I’m not sure the McAdam of the ProJo or Herald would have written that. But this may not be the McAdam of old we are dealing with anymore.

3. I’m open to the possibility that there is something to all of this. Because I recall the McAdam of old. But for now none of this makes sense to me. Outside of a temporary rebuild, strictly from a financial standpoint, the Sox understand that saving $30 or $40 million a year on payroll damages the value of the franchise by much more than that in terms of ticket sales, concessions, merchandising, radio and television advertising, franchise valuation, etc. it also makes FSG significantly less attractive in their work to acquire other sporting properties. I think some skepticism is warranted.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,335
He would have mentioned the source being an agent if that was case. Which he has done in the past.
Industry source pretty much seems like a catch all term when its not a team or agent
This isn’t true at all. Reporters cite industry sources for agents all the time. Where do you think these “player X is expected to get $200m according to industry sources” reports come from?
 

Theodoric

New Member
Jun 13, 2022
22
What do you mean by navigating a new financial realm? Should FSG be looking to spend, without limits, to compete? Or should FSG be looking to spend enough to compete but still turn a profit each year? There is no way that Boston will compete with the Dodgers, just as there was no way they competed with the MFY at the height of Steinbrenner's spending. To think otherwise is crazy.

I'm not saying that ownership is doing a good job here, but the GM (Bloom, Breslow, etc) is generally given a maximum budget for player personnel for each year or multiyear period. Exceptions are generally made for certain players, up to specified limits. Breslow probably had ownership assent to spend a total of $300mm on Yamamoto, outside of the normal budget.

To put it in Premier League terms, the Red Sox are Tottenham/Newcastle, not Chelsea/ManU.
The new financial realm of $300 million contracts. And all teams having a better understanding of statistics. It's not 2003, there's no bargains to be had anymore because 27 dumb teams were valuing empty batting average over even so crude a metric as OPS.

And I'm certainly not asking for unlimited spending. In PL terms, we are Arsenal. Bigger than Tottenham/Newcastle, we can afford a $300 million contract. But unlike Chelsea/United, we can't afford to f*ck it up, we only get one. Just please don't go down Everton route and waste money on $80-$100 million contracts the don't move the needle. (Or as that Cleveland exec said, paraphrasing, "the high price of stars is not the problem; it's the high price of mediocrity").
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,396
The owner could eliminate a lot of this if he maybe went out in public and spoke to the fan base. Kennedy is completely over his head, there is no one speaking about ownership strategy. They desperately need a lucchino out there just to communicate.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,391
The owner could eliminate a lot of this if he maybe went out in public and spoke to the fan base. Kennedy is completely over his head, there is no one speaking about ownership strategy. They desperately need a lucchino out there just to communicate.
I very much agree with this. Terrific point, and very well said.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,747
That's not going to happen. They just announced a gigantic redevelopment around Fenway. Why would they do that if they were about to demand a new stadium?
Fenway Park is also the #1 tourist attraction in New England, and given recent trends selling tickets (and more) to fans of visiting teams is a growing part of the business plan.

FTR, I was in favor of building a new park over on the Mystic River near Assembly Square a la the Pittsburgh ballpark.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,297
Yeah they sell tours what 364 days a year, at $20 each (maybe more now) and an increasing amount of concerts it seems, just because of “Fenway Park”, its not going anywhere.
There’s a ton of people who take tours but never go to a game.
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,125
The owner could eliminate a lot of this if he maybe went out in public and spoke to the fan base. Kennedy is completely over his head, there is no one speaking about ownership strategy. They desperately need a lucchino out there just to communicate.
It’s pretty apparent, to me at least, that Lucchino was most likely the aggressor of the group and that is sorely missing.

I actually completely disagree with the public comment idea. John Henry and Tom Werner absolutely suck at public statements. It’s horrible. They should never speak.

I like Kennedy too and find him to be a respectable voice of ownership.

What lacking, in my opinion, isn’t statements or communication in general, it’s urgency.
 
Oct 12, 2023
802
Given how much money FSG has dumped into Fenway Park and the neighboring area, it would shocking, unthinkable even, if they tried for a new stadium

that whole area is unrecognizable compared to 22 years ago and a big part of that is their investment in the area.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,431
Pure BS

Will hedge funds stop trying to make profit in 2024 because they made profit on 2023?

what happened in the past (winning WS titles) is irrelevant in relation to trying to win another one.
Perhaps the owners won’t take it for granted sometime in the future that some fans have the viewpoint you stated

The top ticket and parking prices and $30/month for NESN360 should allow for the ownership to put some effort to win a 5th one and not stand pay on having 4.
Setting aside McAdam's piece or the laughable notion that he has a good grasp on the FA market (the narrative media has a vested interest in not understanding these markets), all one has to do is look at the Betts situation and beyond to understand what the ownership is doing.

The fact that people got hung up on Bloom's actions when he was simply following his bosses wishes suggests a lot of people are choosing not to see what seems pretty apparent - this ownership group doesn't not want to spend at the top end of the talent market. That's a defensible strategy and maybe the right one. But as a fan, I only care about wins, not the owners bottom line. As such, I wouldn't go out of my way to follow this team and now maybe you+ won't either. The thing is, it may not matter.

In the end you can either accept that ownership has this approach or not and act accordingly.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
It seems that to acquire a #1 we would have to give up Mayer in a deal, which if he is the future and we are holding on to him, does not make it very likely we land a #1 in a trade. I am not sure we have the assets minus Mayer to get a real #1.
You have to look at things in totality. It doesn't have to be Mayer, it could be someone else depending on the other team's needs. Mayer or Teel or Anthony might be the future at their respective positions and the #1/2 type that you might hope to get in return will be seen to be the future at his position. Which is the most difficult to secure? How proven might the return piece be? Is it worth risk giving up an extra couple of years of control on an unproven talent for the less risky talent with a couple less seasons of control and then try to extend a la the Atlanta Brave model that so many here admire?
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,392
The fact that people got hung up on Bloom's actions when he was simply following his bosses wishes suggests a lot of people are choosing not to see what seems pretty apparent - this ownership group doesn't not want to spend at the top end of the talent market.
Then what do you make of the Devers contract? Is it not possible that this ownership group does not want to spend on older players and their post-prime seasons?
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,139
Setting aside McAdam's piece or the laughable notion that he has a good grasp on the FA market (the narrative media has a vested interest in not understanding these markets), all one has to do is look at the Betts situation and beyond to understand what the ownership is doing.

The fact that people got hung up on Bloom's actions when he was simply following his bosses wishes suggests a lot of people are choosing not to see what seems pretty apparent - this ownership group doesn't not want to spend at the top end of the talent market.

I think people need to realize the place the Red Sox are currently in. There is no reason to think they’re a preferred destination. The “history” of the franchise doesn’t take you very far when you aren’t currently good.

Put another way, even if the Sox offered Ohtani 10/700 (with the deferrals) and Yamamoto 12/325, they wouldn’t have a prayer of getting either of those players over the Dodgers. These guys can only pick one team and it’s not going to be us, all things being equal.

I’m not saying ownership actually made those offers or is committed to winning, just talking about the reality of the situation.

When certain teams are interested, we basically have no shot aside from a massive overpay. It’s not really evidence of a lack of commitment from ownership, it’s evidence we stink and Boston isn’t currently much of a draw.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,691
edit: also, what research should McAdam be doing on the market? Looking at what other reporters mention which are largely agent wishlists?
I mean, sure. Or as you write ten minutes later.

This isn’t true at all. Reporters cite industry sources for agents all the time. Where do you think these “player X is expected to get $200m according to industry sources” reports come from?
This is the context any of us has. The understanding that Montgomery’s contract will be larger than expected after YY’s signing is the common ground basis for his column. It’s impossible to get mad about the assertion that “the Sox won’t spend at the top of the market” — as McAdam expects us to do here — without accepting this premise.

My real take on McAdam is that he’s bounced around long enough now to know that what drives engagement and keeps him employed in this era are the stories that make people angry. That or his editors do.

More broadly, boy has the tenor changed. Back in 2015-16 or so it felt to me pretty widely accepted that overbidding for free agents on the downside of their careers was a terrible way to build a team. I definitely think management should spend, and big — there’s no reason not to be in the top 5 in payroll on the 2/3 of years we aren’t resetting the tax. Is Montgomery that guy? Ehh. What if it’s true that Snell wants to stay on the West Coast (as reported) and Montgomery, from South Carolina, doesn’t want to be in Boston either? These seem like extremely plausible scenarios to me, and would collapse McAdam’s argument, but they aren’t questions he bothers to ask. Instead, he pushes this other narrative. I think that’s bad reporting.

I’d feel some measure of both relief and annoyance if we signed the very good Jordan Montgomery for the top of the market price of 7/$175. But McAdam’s framework is that all Sox fans should feel upset, almost betrayed, if that doesn’t happen, no matter the reason. That’s ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Delicious Sponge

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
1,403
Boston
There are a ton of ways to make money, and Henry and Werner have many of those.

There's no way that the profitability of FSG moves the needle much for them personally, and there's no way that the question of whether FSG spends $150mm or $300mm on player salaries is material to Henry or Werner. On top of that, whatever price they could get selling the team would be a massive return on what they spent to buy it. They know that winning franchises are worth a hell of a lot more than losing ones.

Even if you assume Henry and Werner are only motivated by their own financial interests and not winning, the only decisions that would make sense would be to try to do everything you can to win.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,732
There are a ton of ways to make money, and Henry and Werner have many of those.

There's no way that the profitability of FSG moves the needle much for them personally, and there's no way that the question of whether FSG spends $150mm or $300mm on player salaries is material to Henry or Werner. On top of that, whatever price they could get selling the team would be a massive return on what they spent to buy it. They know that winning franchises are worth a hell of a lot more than losing ones.

Even if you assume Henry and Werner are only motivated by their own financial interests and not winning, the only decisions that would make sense would be to try to do everything you can to win.
Not really. A lot of rich guys really like owning famous sports franchises, so they have no intention of selling for the big return, but also are looking for a profit from the franchise. Few owners in any sport are REALLY trying to do everything to win. They are trying to win as a secondary concern to owning the franchise and doing so while making a profit and/or breaking even.
 

Mike473

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
92
I’m sorry, but why not? Fans paid for their tickets and TV packages in those seasons and, presumably, the team still plans to charge to view the team.
I agree. The Red Sox are still a business. A great restaurant that starts providing bad service and food will have a rough time, even if it has been a local favorite for years. Same with almost any business.

I thought a full throttle move of YY and Monty would super charge the team. However, without YY, I don't think simply adding Monty makes much sense and Snell has too many questions for me at his age. As much as I hate to admit it, I think the best move is to go into 2024 with what we have and see how it goes. Maybe some deadline moves can be made to help the organization going forward. The toughest scenario for ownership will be if the Red Sox get off to a slow start and fall out of contention quick. Then, it will be something to see next summer. But, they get a lot of visiting fans coming in, so that will mitigate the situation some what. On the other hand, if they stay competitive for a while, they might be able to pull off another bridge year with minimal pain. But, I have to be honest, I think ownership is underestimating how poorly they are viewed by the general fan base right now. That could be just sport radio and so on, I am not 100% sure to be honest. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. But, I think punting and seeing how it goes is the best move right now. No easy fixes or short cuts now that YY is off the board.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
13,254
There’s a contingent of posters who think that anything perceived as negative about the team, no matter the writer, is some devious plan to get clicks or something. I guess they got Speier and McAdam now too.
 

Delicious Sponge

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
1,403
Boston
Not really. A lot of rich guys really like owning famous sports franchises, so they have no intention of selling for the big return, but also are looking for a profit from the franchise. Few owners in any sport are REALLY trying to do everything to win. They are trying to win as a secondary concern to owning the franchise and doing so while making a profit and/or breaking even.
I'm not talking about "a lot of rich guys;" I'm talking about Henry and Werner, and we don't need to speculate on their motives, we can just look at how they've run the team for the past 20 years. I'm having a hard time concluding from an offseason that isn't over yet that somehow they've decided that winning is a secondary concern.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
34,410
An “industry source”, presumably non Red Sox, says what everyone outside the Red Sox is thinking about the team right now. That’s enough to put in an article? And for people to freak out about it?

Really hope the off-season freeze ends this week, then we can start judging things.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,335
I'm not talking about "a lot of rich guys;" I'm talking about Henry and Werner, and we don't need to speculate on their motives, we can just look at how they've run the team for the past 20 years. I'm having a hard time concluding from an offseason that isn't over yet that somehow they've decided that winning is a secondary concern.
But the situation has changed. It started out that Henry and Warner owned the Red Sox now FSG owns the Red Sox, Penguins, Liverpool, a NASCAR team and they are trying to add more. This isn’t the same situation. I’d take how they’ve run the team over the last five years as more reflective than the previous 15.
 

Sox in the sticks

New Member
Apr 9, 2022
11
McAdam's piece feels like an op-ed to me. His reporting here is a single industry source who thinks they won't go after Montgomery?
Yeah, this piece is very thinly sourced and speculative. It's written with a lot of hedging, too. Always a sign that a story is more of a thought balloon than a foundation stone.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,431
Then what do you make of the Devers contract? Is it not possible that this ownership group does not want to spend on older players and their post-prime seasons?
I am not saying that whatever unstated strategy they are pursuing is bad or wrong. Its probably not, especially given that this ownership has probably maximized every revenue stream around the Red Sox to date. They know their economics far better than anyone here and they are entitled to spend however they see fit.

I am simply noting that they aren't players on the big name FAs because its as plain as day to me. That means their next title is more likely going to be one where they get hot at the right time versus stocking the roster with players whose output is pretty predictable. My response is that I don't get worked up about the Red Sox anymore because they aren't trying to credibly contend. They are trying to contend while maintaining their economics (i.e. they are hoping to get lucky) which is their prerogative - we simply don't have to get as invested.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,691
There’s a contingent of posters who think that anything perceived as negative about the team, no matter the writer, is some devious plan to get clicks or something. I guess they got Speier and McAdam now too.
It’s not really a devious plan, it’s a well documented business strategy for digital publishing today. Newsrooms track engagement and conversions differently in the last few years, and high engagement pieces like these really help reporters. Clearly it works.

Speier is a much better one than McAdam, and his piece is a lot more sober. He reports that there are questions throughout the industry about the team’s willingness to spend at the top of the market, and certainly there are. But also, some context: The “top of the market” has been redefined by the Mets (new owner Steve Cohen’s money), the Padres (a dying owner going for it, now shedding payroll), the Phillies (who spent next to nothing for 4-5 years while they tanked, and then hired to spend wildly), and the Rangers (same as Phillies, plus they have no income tax).

That all happened while the Red Sox were rebuilding. (There was also a pandemic, and a year where we made a deep postseason run).

Speier is wholly correct when he writes that “(t)he 2023 season marked the third straight year and 10th time in 17 seasons that Sox spending was within 5 percent (either above or below) of the luxury tax threshold.” But it doesn’t seem like something to get riled up about. They needed to reset the tax for draft purposes one of those years.

There was a conscious effort to build the team’s assets, either by letting the kids play (Dalbec, Duran, Crawford, Houck, Whitlock) or by recuperating distressed assets from other teams that might later be traded or easily supplanted by prospects (Renfroe, Kiké, Pivetta, Wacha, Cordero, Hill, Pérez, Hosmer, Paxton, JBJ, Duvall). The plan didn’t work, not just because we didn’t sneak into the playoffs, but because we were unable to flip so many of those guys for prospects (due to injury or, reportedly, “indecisiveness”).

If the Sox FO doesn’t spend over the tax 2 out of 3 years going forward, I’ll be pretty annoyed. But after the pandemic, the protracted CBA, and the mandatory reset in either 2022 or 2023 (they chose 2023), the way they played it doesn’t seem like a big deal.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
They’re in this full throttle mess because Werner opened up his mouth.
Well, not exactly. They're in this mess because they've finished last in the division 3 out of the last 4 years and they're seeing their revenues drop because they're offering an inferior product and fans are not taking their platitudes at face value when it comes time to reup on season tix and NESN subscriptions. As such Werner and ownership feel defensive and respond, they just probably didn't think through what that would mean with a weak FA class that Baseball Ops might not want to spend the $ on to match the quote...
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
6,076
I’m not upset at all about not getting YY or even Montgomery. They are still in the foundation stage - not the indefinite Bloom plan of “wait for the A or AA kids” but “get an outfielder better than the current hopes and dreams”. and next year get the high priced center stone (using the Manny 2002 example).
There’s more than one way to spend. Getting a guy a year early and signing him to the mega deal. Locking up Bella or Casas with longer bets. Or wait for the deadline for one of these future FA guys to be traded to a team that will commit.
I have no doubt they have that ability and probably a greater will now than last offseason.As with Bloom I will assume Breslow has a plan, until proven otherwise. I have a hard time ebekieving Henry can’t understand that franchise value is tied to on field success, and varies far more than 10-50 in yearly income.
 
Last edited:

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
There’s a contingent of posters who think that anything perceived as negative about the team, no matter the writer, is some devious plan to get clicks or something. I guess they got Speier and McAdam now too.
With nothing or next to nothing to actually report on, it's ALL click bait. The inference by many is doom and gloom because of the past few seasons. Had things been different the would be something akin to "The Sox are carefully sizing up this off season's targets, looking for the right fits with an eye toward continued success." it really has little to do with negative or positive, but rather framing the narrative toward what gets the most clicks. Currently it's the negative stuff.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
I doubt the accuracy because a few hours later X signed for $100 million more than the Sox offered. His source hadn’t a clue.

And it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if the industry source cited in today’s piece has any clue as well. Let’s be honest here: McAdam mailed this one in.
Yes, or someone in the organization did tell him that and was wrong. Did you see Blooms reaction when he learned? Since we’re being honest : ) i genuinely do think that’s more likely than some throwaway guess by an otherwise grounded reporter.

To be clear, he didn’t report that it was done, he explicitly reported one person’s statement.

edit - Maybe we’re saying the same thing? His source was definitely wrong I agree.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,431
I think people need to realize the place the Red Sox are currently in. There is no reason to think they’re a preferred destination. The “history” of the franchise doesn’t take you very far when you aren’t currently good.

Put another way, even if the Sox offered Ohtani 10/700 (with the deferrals) and Yamamoto 12/325, they wouldn’t have a prayer of getting either of those players over the Dodgers. These guys can only pick one team and it’s not going to be us, all things being equal.

I’m not saying ownership actually made those offers or is committed to winning, just talking about the reality of the situation.

When certain teams are interested, we basically have no shot aside from a massive overpay. It’s not really evidence of a lack of commitment from ownership, it’s evidence we stink and Boston isn’t currently much of a draw.
I am not suggesting that the Red Sox should have offered Ohtani or Yammamoto premiums over what they were offered by Los Angeles. However I would argue that at some point, the premium compensates them for the difference between their preferred destination and another one.

Again, my posts aren't in reaction to the McAdam column or even this offseason. The FSG body of work is one where they either will not or cannot spend with the most aggressive teams in the league. And maybe that's the right approach. However if the problem is Boston isn't a desirable place to play, that easily solvable in most situations.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,038
NH
I think you can accepting of them not spending on Yamamoto while still criticizing the general direction. When does this team compete next? 2021 was an aberration. There was no point they looked like they'd compete in 2022 (despite the first half results), or 2023. They won't compete next year barring something major changing. When's the last time that the franchise as a whole was this directionless? The early 1960s? Maybe the Hobson years?

My frustration as a fan is that Bloom, Breslow, whatever, this team is not better than it was to end the season, and this is the 4th or 5th straight years you can say that. If they're just waiting for the prospects to arrive, fine, I can accept that sort of. But then why not just trade some of the older talent? No matter how good Mayer Teel Anthony Bleis and Rafaela are, unless any of them can pitch, what's the plan in addressing that?

I've been of the thought that the ownership only cares so much as that ratings and asses in the seats don't completely tank. 72 wins, 88, it's all the same so long as you can charge $80 a ticket, $9.50 a beer, and $30 a month for NESN subscriptions.