He got into coaching after he retired. He’s the pitching coach at BYU.
https://byucougars.com/staff/abe-alvarez
Offseason rumors
- Thread starter opes
- Start date
- Status
https://byucougars.com/staff/abe-alvarez
Article this morning
"This is not a profit-oriented business, the baseball business. This is a responsibility, a stewardship by John [Henry], Tom [Werner] and Mike [Gordon] to do everything they can to put a winning, great product on the field, and that will continue in 2024 and beyond.” - Kennedy
https://www.audacy.com/weei/sports/red-sox/sam-kennedy-red-sox-is-not-a-profit-oriented-business
"This is not a profit-oriented business, the baseball business. This is a responsibility, a stewardship by John [Henry], Tom [Werner] and Mike [Gordon] to do everything they can to put a winning, great product on the field, and that will continue in 2024 and beyond.” - Kennedy
https://www.audacy.com/weei/sports/red-sox/sam-kennedy-red-sox-is-not-a-profit-oriented-business
Thank you, BeantownIdaho, for the link.
I’m a longtime lurker, but this article reads like pre-emptive damage control. FSG knows what the upcoming Forbes valuation looks like and they are getting in front of it. Baseball is not a profit oriented business? Interesting
I’m a longtime lurker, but this article reads like pre-emptive damage control. FSG knows what the upcoming Forbes valuation looks like and they are getting in front of it. Baseball is not a profit oriented business? Interesting
So Kennedy is going with the “ownership isn’t cheap, I’m just incompetent” approach. Interesting strategy.
I really haven't joined the Kennedy pile on much, I think he's in a very tough position and is basically a human bulletproof vest...
However, what in the hell is that quote? Why in the world would you say that? It makes him and all of FSG look bad. Might be time to get Sammy K away from the microphone for a little while
However, what in the hell is that quote? Why in the world would you say that? It makes him and all of FSG look bad. Might be time to get Sammy K away from the microphone for a little while
This guy. I mean, he just needs to stop. This is not transparency, this is spin. Not only that but he's treating his customers like they're idiots. "This is not a profit-oriented business, this baseball business". Just fuck all the way off, Sam. Jesus.
Long time lurker here, but had to respond to this insane quote. John Henry bought the Sox for $660,000,000 million in 2001. 23 years later, it's worth roughly $5 BILLION DOLLARS. That is a 657.58% increase in value.
Can we get ownership a better communications team?
Geez... maybe I'm totally misreading or misunderstanding this.... but I'm reading this as him saying, "we'll put together a winning team, no matter the cost because it's not about profits..."
This is pretty much where I'm at with all of this. As someone who has supported this team in various ways for over 50 years, the last thing that I want to hear is that baseball is a non profit business. These fuckers are pretty much looking for ways to torch whatever remaining shreds of goodwill and trust that the fan base has afforded them.
Basically all he is saying is we are trying to win. From his perspective, they fired bloom. They think they're smarter than everyone else and that signing the current free agents long-term hurts more than helps. Beyond that I'm not sure it's anything different than any of the other cryptic comments from Breslow et all.
Maybe? But owning a baseball team is about profits and always has been since the dawn of MLB. Practically every year the valuation of a MLB franchise rises by 8% (I may be off on this, but I think I'm in the ballpark -- no pun intended). Baseball has been and, always will be, a business. It's why so many rich people are lined up around the corner for a chance to purchase a Major League team. Maybe I'm overly cynical (shocking!) but to suggest otherwise is to completely fabricate a reality to your fans.
John Henry didn't "win it for ..." your dad or your grandma or your roomate. He won it all because it made the most financial sense (which, they byproduct is awesome for us--no argument on that). If the Red Sox were looked at as simply a baseball business, one that didn't need to turn a profit, the Sox would spend x times over their current budget. Every single year. Fines be damned. They wouldn't charge $15 for a beer. People wouldn't be secretly wishing that the Sox will suck so that you can get reasonably priced tickets on StubHub in September. They wouldn't tell you that half the fun of watching the Red Sox is sitting in a small-assed 112 year old ballpark.
This statement is a lie. A complete and total lie.
EDIT: oh yeah, if Boston Red Sox baseball isn't a profit-oriented thing why do they charge $50 for a vile of Fenway Dirt? Or try to monetize their fan base by having you join the Fenway Club or whatever cockamamie name they gave it? Or charge $40 a head for tours of their Spring Training site? Never mind what they charge to walk around Fenway. Kennedy isn't dumb, but he's not charasmatic enough to be a grifter. Fuck this dude.
If this is true (and it may be) the messaging and messengers surrounding this off season have been shit. Just when you think that there are no more rakes to step on someone from ownership/management steps up to the mic. I'll love this team until the day that I die, but if our differences can't be reconciled I might start seeing other teams.
I'm pretty used to business owners and shit... everyone lying. Players lie to the media about tons of stuff. Business owners too. This doesn't upset me at all. We know that nobody buys a baseball team wanting to take a loss but it's a borderline vanity project for a lot of owners too. I'm aware it's a business and profits are essentially what business is all about. I run a small construction company and while I seek to make a profit, I'm also very invested in making sure the product we make is top quality and I'm willing to lose some money at points and also to foster a good group of guys that work for me- and yeah, some of those guys are borderline idiots and not productive but they're fun to work with. Different situation but I can read what Kennedy said as the best possible bullshit. I'm not worried about someone lying when a microphone is in front of their face. I have to lie to clients on occasion on time frames, and sometimes just that I know what I'm doing! After all is said and done we make really good shit.
To somewhat piggyback on @John Marzano Olympic Hero above but it's more than that and more insulting than that.
I mean, it's obviously a profit oriented business. Like that's such a blatant bold faced lie I can't believe he actually uttered those words. If it wasn't a profit oriented business the team would have close to a billion dollar payroll.
To say something this stupid is bad enough but to say it AFTER the offseason they've had, with talk about budget parameters etc., is honestly unbelievable. How stupid does he think people are?
I don't think this is true at all. Rich guys are lining up to buy teams because it's cool to say you own a baseball team. Anyone can buy a yacht or penthouse, but there are only so many baseball teams to go around.
The Red Sox should be run as a non-profit. That doesn't mean you're not trying to generate as much revenue as possible by charging whatever you can for seats and beers. It means that all that beer money gets plowed back into the team in some way or another. Not into the owner's pockets.
I think the more precise quote would be to say it's not about maximizing profits. I don't expect the team to have close to a billion dollar payroll because that would (I imagine) put costs way above revenue. That's not realistic. I don't expect them to lose money. I expect them to be in the break even/modest gain category.
For what it's worth, I think the quote directly leading into the one mentioned is more important.
“Well, finances are not better,” Kennedy said. “But again, I'm not going to talk about specific financial parameters or our budget. What I will tell you is the revenues that we generate from the Boston Red Sox are reinvested into the Boston Red Sox baseball operations, our operating expenses, and Fenway Park. And that has been consistent for 23 years."
In this circumstance, I actually believe them In that they're putting money into things surrounding the Red Sox, but not necessarily baseball operations. Breslow (and FSG) have hired a lot of outside influences and we all like the addition of Bailey as pitching coach, so I do believe they're spending money there.
The real kick in the nuts, at least as far as I'm concerned, is the part about Fenway Park at the end. FSG isn't alone in this regard, but they seem to be spending more and more and more toward the "amusement park" aspect of going to a baseball game and less on product on the field. It ties in with all the "Fenway Park experience" BS we heard earlier in the year. Continuing to get (and pander to) the tourists coming in from May - August is more important (at least in terms of where they're allocating resources) than the baseball team.
On the one hand, that's capitalism and they're certainly allowed. On the other, it flies directly in the face with the idea of being a steward of the franchise, at least in terms of on the field product.
Keep in mind, I don't LIKE it. I hope things change. But he's not wrong when he mentions money flowing into Fenway Park (and the surrounding area) itself. That just has almost no bearing on the chase for championships at this point.
“Well, finances are not better,” Kennedy said. “But again, I'm not going to talk about specific financial parameters or our budget. What I will tell you is the revenues that we generate from the Boston Red Sox are reinvested into the Boston Red Sox baseball operations, our operating expenses, and Fenway Park. And that has been consistent for 23 years."
In this circumstance, I actually believe them In that they're putting money into things surrounding the Red Sox, but not necessarily baseball operations. Breslow (and FSG) have hired a lot of outside influences and we all like the addition of Bailey as pitching coach, so I do believe they're spending money there.
The real kick in the nuts, at least as far as I'm concerned, is the part about Fenway Park at the end. FSG isn't alone in this regard, but they seem to be spending more and more and more toward the "amusement park" aspect of going to a baseball game and less on product on the field. It ties in with all the "Fenway Park experience" BS we heard earlier in the year. Continuing to get (and pander to) the tourists coming in from May - August is more important (at least in terms of where they're allocating resources) than the baseball team.
On the one hand, that's capitalism and they're certainly allowed. On the other, it flies directly in the face with the idea of being a steward of the franchise, at least in terms of on the field product.
Keep in mind, I don't LIKE it. I hope things change. But he's not wrong when he mentions money flowing into Fenway Park (and the surrounding area) itself. That just has almost no bearing on the chase for championships at this point.
When was the last time a rich guy wanted to lose money?
No one wants to lose money (rich or poor), so to say that owning a baseball team (in particular the Red Sox) isn't about John Henry making money is bullshit. Plain and simple. John Henry wouldn't be JOHN HENRY if he wasn't worried about making the most money that he can with every investment that he makes. Again, this is fine and logical and clearly not what he has been doing for the last five years. Saying anything other than this is like an adult convincing their kid that Santa Claus is real despite being busted putting a bunch presents under the tree on Christmas Eve.
Right. I think he poorly-expressed an attitude that most fans want ownership to have. "We understand that we have a responsibility to the fans not to place the bottom line ahead of the success of the team" or somesuch. I really dont get the Kennedy pile-on here. People seem to be taking a fairly innocuous statement and construing it in the worst way possible. (I understand that one shouldnt make statements that can be construed in such a way.)
How much are they actually *spending* on the "experience," though, versus just promoting it to a vomitous degree?
This just isn't true. I don't like the way this offseason has gone any more than you do. But up until this point, they have always spent right up to, or past the tax. If it was all about maximizing profits above all else we would not have seen Garrett Richards, the return of JBJ (and his salary), the payroll remaining above the cap last year, or any number of moves that were unlikely to generate any additional revenue.
Again, I don't like this offseason. But there are numbers between 1 and 10.
I think its time to just stop micro analyzing every single thing this ownership group says.
It doesn't matter. If they decrease payroll by 10+% a year after finishing last place in the division coupled with 1) being way below the tax threshold and 2) having very little in the way of long term contracts - none of these words matter.
Listen to their actions.
It doesn't matter. If they decrease payroll by 10+% a year after finishing last place in the division coupled with 1) being way below the tax threshold and 2) having very little in the way of long term contracts - none of these words matter.
Listen to their actions.
Yes, exactly. And for all the obfuscation and contradictions in the messaging and the rumors, the payroll numbers are public information and cannot be hidden from.
Seriously? You've never heard insanely stupid wealthy people dumping tons of money into vanity projects or yachts? Or various other things that just lose money but that they really enjoy or love having their name plastered all over them?
They don't say, "let's lose some money today on buying a digital media platform so I can scream at the top of my lungs and not get fact-checked" but they do shit like that all the time.
I wasn't talking to that point. My point was to Max that rich guys are lining up to buy MLB teams and don't care whether they lose money because it's "cool to say you own a major league franchise". John Henry didn't buy the Sox to look cool--I'm not sure there's anything John Henry could do to look cool, but that's besides the point. John Henry bought the Boston Red Sox because it was a sound investment and he (rightly) thought that his initial investment would pay off whenever he decided to sell the franchise.
If the only objective was to look cool, why didn't he stick with the Florida Marlins? He could have done the same thing in an infinitely cool city, but no matter how many championships the Marlins won, they were never going to be a better investment than the Red Sox.
That's the point.
So you're contention is that John Henry bought the Boston Red Sox to lose money? Interesting theory.
EDIT: John Henry is not some benevolent grandpa who bought the Red Sox simply to sow seeds of happiness throughout New England. The sooner you get this reality through your head, the better you will be. John Henry is a very successful business man who cautiously weighs the pros and cons of his investments. He's not Elon Musk. He does not spend tens of millions of dollars on vanity things--at least I've never seen or heard of Henry purchases that fit this description. John Henry, has and always will, run the Red Sox (and the other holdings of FSG) as a business. The minute it stops being profitable, he is selling it off--no matter if he spends to the tax every year or not.
Last edited:
Agree. That is literally all that matters. Their actions say "we're not spending on the on-field product with impact players." Until they do otherwise, the words are meaningless. Not that what they've been saying has done them any favors.
Didn't they just spend a boatload on investment in "amenities" surrounding Fenway Park? I'm including that.
To be clear, I'm not "defending" the action. Just saying that I think they are putting money back into the "experience." Which, I hate that it's their focus and not on winning titles any more, to be clear.
That's not what I said in neither my prior post or the other few in this conversation.
It would be nice but the next time the bolded happens around these parts will be the first.
Also, its 2024. Anyone with a smart phone and social media account knows that if you want to communicate something with a broad audience, the language you choose will have consequences. Even if Kennedy is being misconstrued here, its kind of on him.
Its Boston, its the Red Sox and payroll is very topical. You would think he would be very prepared to spin at every opportunity and this is what we got. Even with the most charitable reading it isn't great for FSG.
Last edited:
OK, but what BASEBALL teams do we abandon the Sox for? I really like Tampa Bay. The Orioles and the Dbacks are fun. But my heart is in Massachusetts.
Based on the quote below, I think Kennedy is implying that ownership is willing to put profits back into the team and break even, but that finances aren't great and they won't put additional money into the Sox from other sources.
Last edited:
Nobody's said it. You can believe rich guys want to buy sport franchises primarily for vanity while also believing they don't want to lose money on the venture. There are lots of ways for rich guys to make money, the demand for sports teams isn't because its the best way, it's because it's fun to say you do.
Very funny, but he has rooted for your team for 73 years. Poor benighted bastard.
I’m sure the money spent on Fenway to them included all the investment and development of the real estate that they are in the process of doing in the area. That work is expensive.
I thought a loose cannon was someone who said too much? He's the opposite, he doesn't really say anything. He just workshops PR phrases he thinks we want to hear, when in fact there is no combination of words that interest us.
That’s not the part I was agreeing with lol. I was referring to the poor messaging.
Also when people think about profitability, that's the annual checks and balances. Henry surely knows that the real money is made in the franchise's valuation. Given that they bring in like $500m a year, the annual balance sheet probably never looks bad, but even a loss is relatively minor compared to the team's price tag. Meanwhile, all that stuff they're doing around Fenway is like putting an addition on your house, it will (almost) defo pay off in the end. But since it's baseball, winning increases the perceived and maybe actual value of the team too. So they can eschew "profits" out of one side of their mouth without taking their eye off making money.
While I'm not well versed in these sorts of relationships, I'm not seeking divorce here. I'm thinking more in terms that perhaps I start seeing other teams as a way to satisfy certain needs while hoping to salvage what we have left together. A polyteamorous relationship if you will where MLB.TV will assist in my getting back into the dating scene.
This is a brutal but honest description of Red Sox owners. The honest part is that they are and continue to be willing to spending the revenue they make (huzzah!). In Kennedy's defense, There are some clubs that don't even do that. The brutal part is that nobody buys a sports team to turn an operating profit - breakeven is the BEST anyone could expect. Ownership of a sports franchise is all about the capital appreciation in the value of the asset over the ownership period ($660M to $5B as noted above)...and it's extremely tax efficient, taking operating losses along the way and paying capital gains only if /when sold. (Ignoring the usual real estate profit potential around the stadium/arena neighborhood!!!) The problem for Red Sox fans is that ownership is ONLY willing to do what Kennedy stated above. That is a change weather or not the y will admit it and its a tough stance when there are many owners that are willing and able to fund large annual operating deficits knowing the gain in value will more than make up for it. For whatever reason (i have my own theories) Red Sox ownership group has decided they are not willing or able to run deficits that would eat into the $4+ billion of imbedded profit/gain. Hence, brutal but honest.
I don't know. That quote is like a Rorschach test. You read into it what you are predisposed to read into it. I read the quote as – “we understand that you have to spend in baseball to win, and spending wildly doesn’t correlate to making profits”. I mean, that’s common sense. Saying that doesn’t mean that the business isn’t profitable or that they’re not trying to make profits – it’s a recognition that the economics of winning don’t always align with making money – and they are ok with that.
Frankly, without seeing the books, I’m always a little skeptical of this popular axiom that the Red Sox are a wildly profitable business gouging their customers. Valuation is decoupled from profitability on a regular basis.
Frankly, without seeing the books, I’m always a little skeptical of this popular axiom that the Red Sox are a wildly profitable business gouging their customers. Valuation is decoupled from profitability on a regular basis.
There is plenty of room for you on the TB bandwagon. I can offer you cheap tix and all you can eat cuban sandwiches. You can be president of the fan club, too, if you want.
I agree with most of this, but the annual Forbes reports show plenty of teams with operating profits, too. Not that their numbers are all-inclusive or super-reliable, but we don't really have much in the way of public info on the profit figures.
Emphasis added by me. I'd simply qualify this with a question about what is profitable? If the Boston Red Sox enterprise loses 25 million operating year after year, but the Franchise value increases 75 million year after year - that investment is growing by 50m annually. The 25m is cash money which needs to be funded while the 75m is in an appreciating asset (but non cash). The Oakland A's can't do this....even as the franchise value increases, the ownership group doesn't have the resources to fund operating losses (from my understanding).
So the decision making process, in my mind, includes the value of the franchise / infrastructure...not simply the bottom line of baseball operations. The rich guy who has a 100% business mind invests hard dollars from other sources to fund the losses, but sees his total value increasing year over year over year.
It feels like every time Kennedy and/or Warner open their mouth they can't help but step on the provurbial rake. Even if you wanted to parse what they're saying as factually accurate, it's hard not to come away with a feeling they're wildly out of touch. It almost feels like they thought dumping Bloom was good enough to provide blanket immunity.
All available evidence has the Sox being profitable on a FCF/OM basis even without the financials of NESN included. Could it be wrong? I guess so, but there really isnt any evidence that that is the case. Given the lack of inclusion of NESN, its likely public estimates are conservative if anything. The reasonable conclusion is that they could easily spend $250-$260M in player salaries a year and still have a positive margin.
- Status