The Red Sox let go of several longtime coaches, scouts & instructors

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Even assuming that maximizing shareholder return is now their #1 priority (which I don't, but so what) the reason they should "mess with it" is that a payroll increase combined with what is (mostly) an indisputable influx of young (read: cheap) talent means that an increase in spending has a much more realistic chance of increasing the ROI by being a much better team. I have no idea, of course, if that's what's actually happening or going to happen, but I think it goes to question of "why might next year be different for spending"? (And I am assuming that a deep playoff run is a profit-generating experience. Is it?)

Or you deal off assets as they get close to becoming expensive and you reset with young talent and repeat. Its a proven business model.

I am familiar with the strategy you describe but all of the evidence to date is that ownership is more interested in efficiency than winning. Maybe that will change but we have no evidence that they are inclined that way and ample data to the contrary.

I don't begrudge anyone having faith but at this point that's all you have.

 

[simplicio]

The Devers contract offers pretty ample evidence against that position I'd say.

 

[joe dokes]

Or you deal off assets as they get close to becoming expensive and you reset with young talent and repeat. Its a proven business model.

I am familiar with the strategy you describe but all of the evidence to date is that ownership is more interested in efficiency than winning. Maybe that will change but we have no evidence that they are inclined that way and ample data to the contrary.

I don't begrudge anyone having faith but at this point that's all you have.

I think the bolded is mostly a post hoc conclusion based on the fact that they haven't been winning. To me it's akin to determining whether a player "cares."

That's it's intentional is one possible conclusion. It's just as likely that it's based on mistakes in talent evaluation, or minor league coaching, or major league coaching, or keeping a bad manager, etc. -- baseball things that were gotten wrong. (there's certainly no shortage of people here who think the manager and all the coaches suck. Yet they just made Cora one of the highest-paid managers.)

 

[Midnight Ryder Jones]

Even assuming that maximizing shareholder return is now their #1 priority (which I don't, but so what) a reason they might "mess with it" is that a payroll increase combined with what is (mostly) an indisputable influx of young (and cheap) talent means that an increase in spending has a much more realistic chance of increasing the ROI by being a much better team. I have no idea, of course, if that's what's actually happening or going to happen, but I think it goes to the question of "why might next year be different for spending"? (And I am assuming that a deep playoff run is a profit-generating experience. Is it?)

To answer the question in bold: not really. Revenue sharing has become so extensive in MLB that the A's have been one of MLB's most profitable teams for years. There is very little financial incentive for owners to invest actual money in making their teams better.

 

[NickEsasky]

No, it's about the role and the value that it delivers. If a scout making $100k a year isn't delivering $110k of value then it's time to reassess the needs and the personnel.

Are you suggesting that the Red Sox are a charity and that dead weight needs to be carried just because? What competitive advantage has this group of scouts brought? I don't see this team doing much different than any other team tbh - about the biggest variance between now and the previous regimes has been how to use this talent - keep or sell.

Well theoretically those scouts/staff helped build the current team and the farm system folks are raving about. I'm sure there is dead weight there, and we all know this org can't develop pitchers for shit, but given all the other moves and cutting lately there definitely seems to be some smoke. As a fanbase, we've already reset when the spending window will open multiple times. Come March I won't be surprised if the window gets reset until 2026. I hope I'm wrong and Fishy is right though.

 

[Fishy1]

The Devers contract offers pretty ample evidence against that position I'd say.

Agreed. And they've had all this money tied up in Story and Sale who weren't playing, so they've been reluctant to spend on top of that until they've reset. I think a lot of this "they're not spending, so they won't spend" is recency bias.

I think it's an open question whether they spend big next year, but I think it's likely. The Red Sox are pulling in a lot of fans right now, but it won't keep happening if they don't keep winning, imo. They've got a shitload of money coming off the books, at least 50 million, and a few places they really need to shore up (bullpen, pitching). Are they going to increase their payroll by 100 million in one off-season? No. But are they going to reallocate that 50 million? Yeah, I think so.

@NickEsasky I think either case could be true, tbh. I'm just presenting an alternative possibility, to my mind.

 

[AlNipper49]

Well how much input they have to top 2 round decisions is probably something that only the Red Sox front office understands.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I'd bet it's as simple as Breslow wanting to assemble his own team, and he didn't really have time to get all his top choices in place when he took the job. And the embargo against raiding the Cubs staff cited above. It shouldn't be automatically interpreted as a negative on the folks getting let go.

About 7 years ago, I was let go from a job I demonstrably thrived at for 14 years when a new boss took over the division. He tried telling me "it's not that I don't like you, it's just a move I need to make" and did it so awkwardly that I spitefully hated him a while. I'd never been canned before and was embarrassed talking about it. Then I heard somebody in a similar situation describe the reason for their getting let go as "regime change", and almost instantly I felt better about the whole thing. Bosses could and should get to pick their own team, even if the team in place is doing the job.

I still hate the guy who laid me off, but because he's bad at strategy and an asshole and made himself super-rich cozying up to other assholes. But not because of spite. That's progress!

 

[joe dokes]

To answer the question in bold: not really. Revenue sharing has become so extensive in MLB that the A's have been one of MLB's most profitable teams for years. There is very little financial incentive for owners to invest actual money in making their teams better.

Your point is accurate as far as the A's go, but I think the A's are such outliers that extrapolating their experience to other teams doesn't seem useful. (You might be right overall; I really don't know how much revenue the post season generates for the participants.)

 

[section15]

The front office personnel evaluators....

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't want re-litigate individual contracts or what they signal because we are collectively terrible at assessing those markets imo. I will spare everyone a rant about "overpay/underpay" posts but it illustrates the problem with the discussion.

In short, I view the extensions and contracts handed out by the Red Sox as generally team favorable. I fully understand that we have folks here who disagree (and they have some work to show too!) but my sense is you cannot viably run the Red Sox like the A's.

Instead the strategy might be something like "we cannot sell as many tickets as the top clubs in baseball so our model is not to compete with them for divisions or FA talent. However since this is Boston we need to be competitive enough to keep the Fenway Experience attractive and the tickets moving".

If my conjecture is kind of the approach, it means you spend money but only on deals that are generally team friendly. Maybe that's wrong or its going to change but I see that philosophy informing some of the deals/extensions handed out in recent years

 

[NickEsasky]

I'd bet it's as simple as Breslow wanting to assemble his own team, and he didn't really have time to get all his top choices in place when he took the job. And the embargo against raiding the Cubs staff cited above. It shouldn't be automatically interpreted as a negative on the folks getting let go.

About 7 years ago, I was let go from a job I demonstrably thrived at for 14 years when a new boss took over the division. He tried telling me "it's not that I don't like you, it's just a move I need to make" and did it so awkwardly that I spitefully hated him a while. I'd never been canned before and was embarrassed talking about it. Then I heard somebody in a similar situation describe the reason for their getting let go as "regime change", and almost instantly I felt better about the whole thing. Bosses could and should get to pick their own team, even if the team in place is doing the job.

I still hate the guy who laid me off, but because he's bad at strategy and an asshole and made himself super-rich cozying up to other assholes. But not because of spite. That's progress!

The problem with this Breslow’s guys logic, in my mind, is Breslow wasn’t a GM or POBO with the Cubs. He was AGM and in charge of pitching coordination. How many of his guys can he really have?

 

[Fishy1]

I don't want re-litigate individual contracts or what they signal because we are collectively terrible at assessing those markets imo. I will spare everyone a rant about "overpay/underpay" posts but it illustrates the problem with the discussion.

In short, I view the extensions and contracts handed out by the Red Sox as generally team favorable. I fully understand that we have folks here who disagree (and they have some work to show too!) but my sense is you cannot viably run the Red Sox like the A's.

Instead the strategy might be something like "we cannot sell as many tickets as the top clubs in baseball so our model is not to compete with them for divisions or FA talent. However since this is Boston we need to be competitive enough to keep the Fenway Experience attractive and the tickets moving".

If my conjecture is kind of the approach, it means you spend money but only on deals that are generally team friendly. Maybe that's wrong or its going to change but I see that philosophy informing some of the deals/extensions handed out in recent years

How are you defining team-friendly in general? The Devers contract was market-rate.

If we're not looking at particular contracts, then what are we doing? We're talking out of our ass. We're going on vibes.

As for them spending like the A's... I mean, that's pretty silly, no?

 

[joe dokes]

The problem with this Breslow’s guys logic, in my mind, is Breslow wasn’t a GM or POBO with the Cubs. He was AGM and in charge of pitching coordination. How many of his guys can he really have?

Fair point, but (and not trying to be snarky) Breslow wasn't a Chief Baseball Officer until he was. Regardless at least a few of the Sox departed are in pitching, so even if you limit Breslow to pitching people, there might be quite a few Cubs guys he wants; and who he may also thing are ready for bigger roles. Given that the most often-cited weakness of the farm system is pitching, there is some logic there.

 

[mauf]

I don't want re-litigate individual contracts or what they signal because we are collectively terrible at assessing those markets imo. I will spare everyone a rant about "overpay/underpay" posts but it illustrates the problem with the discussion.

In short, I view the extensions and contracts handed out by the Red Sox as generally team favorable. I fully understand that we have folks here who disagree (and they have some work to show too!) but my sense is you cannot viably run the Red Sox like the A's.

Instead the strategy might be something like "we cannot sell as many tickets as the top clubs in baseball so our model is not to compete with them for divisions or FA talent. However since this is Boston we need to be competitive enough to keep the Fenway Experience attractive and the tickets moving".

If my conjecture is kind of the approach, it means you spend money but only on deals that are generally team friendly. Maybe that's wrong or its going to change but I see that philosophy informing some of the deals/extensions handed out in recent years

The Sox have been in the top five in payroll for most of the current ownership’s tenure. That changed in the past few years. That could be because their business strategy changed, or because there was a unique confluence of circumstances that greatly reduced the impact that marginal spending would have on winning, and by extension profits.

For the first time in several years, the Sox have a good young core and are heading into an offseason where spending money on targeted upgrades could make the difference between being a middling team and a contender. It will be telling whether they choose to spend this offseason or instead choose to maintain the middle-of-the-pack payroll they had this season.

 

[Fishy1]

The Sox have been in the top five in payroll for most of the current ownership’s tenure. That changed in the past few years. That could be because their business strategy changed, or because there was a unique confluence of circumstances that greatly reduced the impact that marginal spending would have on winning, and by extension profits.

For the first time in several years, the Sox have a good young core and are heading into an offseason where spending money on targeted upgrades could make the difference between being a middling team and a contender. It will be telling whether they choose to spend this offseason or instead choose to maintain the middle-of-the-pack payroll they had this season.

This is where I'm at, thanks for putting it so concisely. And I think the money they spent on Devers maybe a signal they are willing to build up their payroll.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

How are you defining team-friendly in general? The Devers contract was market-rate.

If we're not looking at particular contracts, then what are we doing? We're talking out of our ass. We're going on vibes.

As for them spending like the A's... I mean, that's pretty silly, no?

We can agree to disagree about what "market rate" means. This board is terrible in general about markets of any kind, mostly because of bias - we tend to favor ownership versus labor because we want as many toys as possible - but also because we simply don't have enough information about what sort of interest a player has, how the team views them strategically etc. I mean people here think they do but they just don't have that sort of access.

Finally, nice try with the vibes shade (you really don't need to do that but whatever). Absent any evidence at all over the past few years, you are still convinced they are poised to open up their wallet. I hope you are right but this is more vibey than my post.

 

[Fishy1]

We can agree to disagree about what "market rate" means. This board is terrible in general about markets of any kind, mostly because of bias - we tend to favor ownership versus labor because we want as many toys as possible - but also because we simply don't have enough information about what sort of interest a player has, how the team views them strategically etc. I mean people here think they do but they just don't have that sort of access.

Finally, nice try with the vibes shade (you really don't need to do that but whatever). Absent any evidence at all over the past few years, you are still convinced they are poised to open up their wallet. I hope you are right but this is more vibey than my post.

Don't take it personally, if you can help it.

I've said several times I think they could go either way. I think, looking at the totality of their ownership period and taking under consideration that they have spent less recently, that it could be that they're permanently paring back, and that it could be that they were waiting for the right time to spend.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

The Sox have been in the top five in payroll for most of the current ownership’s tenure. That changed in the past few years.

What changed is the RedBird stake. These types of investors tend to seek pure economic returns versus wins. They are fans of money and huge yields versus the joy of competing for titles.

 

[astrozombie]

The Sox have been in the top five in payroll for most of the current ownership’s tenure. That changed in the past few years. That could be because their business strategy changed, or because there was a unique confluence of circumstances that greatly reduced the impact that marginal spending would have on winning, and by extension profits.

For the first time in several years, the Sox have a good young core and are heading into an offseason where spending money on targeted upgrades could make the difference between being a middling team and a contender. It will be telling whether they choose to spend this offseason or instead choose to maintain the middle-of-the-pack payroll they had this season.

Doesn't that describe this past offseason? And other than Giolito (YMMV if him being healthy was the difference between the Sox being a middling team or a contender) and trading for O'Neil (a good trade!), they did not do much to upgrade. And after the fact, the line seemed to be "well, no one actually wanted to play in Boston" and "injuries", the latter of which only seems to affect the Red Sox the last several years. So I guess my question is why would you expect next year to be different?

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

The problem with this Breslow’s guys logic, in my mind, is Breslow wasn’t a GM or POBO with the Cubs. He was AGM and in charge of pitching coordination. How many of his guys can he really have?

Oh, I think he has plenty of guys! Not just folks who were under/alongside him with the Cubs, but friends he picked up along the way in all his previous jobs.

 

[lexrageorge]

Usually when organizations take these type of steps, it's for a combination of the reasons stated above. The team's upper management, including Breslow, probably feel they were not getting the ROI they should have been getting from the organization as it stands. And there may very well have been a directive to cut costs. Both can be true, and likely are.

The impression I have from outside the house is that the team was spending a lot of money in scouting and not getting anything more out of it than the rest of the league. If so, then these moves are not at all surprising.

What changed is the RedBird stake. These types of investors tend to seek pure economic returns versus wins. They are fans of money and huge yields versus the joy of competing for titles.

I could be wrong but I didn't think Redbird has a majority or even plurality stake in the team. Maybe that's changed, and I do realize that even minority shareholders can have a lot of say in how things are run. And they certainly could be asking the questions about whether the team is getting its expected value from the front office staff.

Doesn't that describe this past offseason? And other than Giolito (YMMV if him being healthy was the difference between the Sox being a middling team or a contender) and trading for O'Neil (a good trade!), they did not do much to upgrade. And after the fact, the line seemed to be "well, no one actually wanted to play in Boston" and "injuries", the latter of which only seems to affect the Red Sox the last several years. So I guess my question is why would you expect next year to be different?

I know people disagree but last season's team was never really in serious contention for a wild card. It also had a lot of expensive pieces in player like Sale and pending free agents such as Verdugo who had one foot both feet out the door. There were also real question marks around Houck and Crawford and Whitlock. The former 2 have at least established themselves as decent pitchers (obviously different roles), and the last will clearly be bullpen material going forward. And the team has four significant and highly touted prospects expected to all compete for roles in spring training. These are marked differences in terms of trajectory.

It's fair that there's an open question as to whether the team will spend to bring in the talent to fill the holes, especially in the pitching staff. So it will be both surprising and disappointing if the team stood still, even more so than this past offseason.

 

[mauf]

What changed is the RedBird stake. These types of investors tend to seek pure economic returns versus wins. They are fans of money and huge yields versus the joy of competing for titles.

You think RedBird invested in a pro sports franchise because they thought it would throw off lots of free cash relative to the size of their investment?

I assume they aren’t that dumb, and their investment is a capital appreciation play, as it is for most owners. I don’t think that objective is necessarily misaligned with winning.

 

[NickEsasky]

The Redbird stake may be more of a Red herring given the percentage of the team they own. But besides Redbird we do know that the owners no longer have just the Red Sox in their portfolio. They have Liverpool, Fenway Racing, and now the Penguins. So their focus now could be the entire portfolio vs what's best for any one team in the portfolio. There was a lot of talk that the delays in Liverpool's stadium upgrades cost them money as they couldn't reap the increased revenue benefits from the renovations. Perhaps that got spread around to the Red Sox's finances as well.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

You think RedBird invested in a pro sports franchise because they thought it would throw off lots of free cash relative to the size of their investment?

I assume they aren’t that dumb, and their investment is a capital appreciation play, as it is for most owners. I don’t think that objective is necessarily misaligned with winning.

Capital appreciation happens when an asset gets bid up. There are many paths to increasing an assets value but generally its via top or bottom line strategies.

In short teams can try to win and juice valuations that way however it gets expensive as we have witnessed all around sports. On the other hand, if teams can improve operating efficiency, those gains tend to be sustainable.

In the end we don't have any information about the plans for current ownership but given the way the team is being run, it feels like they are more focused on margins than winning.

 

[dynomite]

Well theoretically those scouts/staff helped build the current team and the farm system folks are raving about. I'm sure there is dead weight there, and we all know this org can't develop pitchers for shit, but given all the other moves and cutting lately there definitely seems to be some smoke. As a fanbase, we've already reset when the spending window will open multiple times. Come March I won't be surprised if the window gets reset until 2026. I hope I'm wrong and Fishy is right though.

Or you deal off assets as they get close to becoming expensive and you reset with young talent and repeat. Its a proven business model.

I am familiar with the strategy you describe but all of the evidence to date is that ownership is more interested in efficiency than winning. Maybe that will change but we have no evidence that they are inclined that way and ample data to the contrary.

I don't begrudge anyone having faith but at this point that's all you have.

My summary:

• This organization won 4 World Series in 15 years. That bought nearly a lifetime of good will from me. Obviously this organization was doing plenty right.
  
  
• They extended Devers, Rafaela, and Bello, committed to Story and Yoshida, and have some of the most exciting positional talent in MLB arriving from MiLB in 2025/2026 in ATM.
  
  
• For the first time since 2010-2015 (during which time you may remember they won World Series in 2013), the Sox have missed the playoffs 5 of the past 6 seasons. They are on their 3rd "head of baseball operations" or whatever terminology since 2019, and are I believe 11th in payroll allocations this year (between SFG and STL) -- a notable decline from recent history.
  
  
• Like many here, as I've said before, I'm deeply frustrated with being told to "wait until next year" when the team almost always managed to both contend in the present & prepare for the future from 2003 to 2018.

It's one thing if you're the Guardians or the Brewers or the Rays and manage to make the playoffs and contend just about every year despite shedding salary and homegrown superstars (Glasnow, Arozarena, Burnes, Lindor, etc.), particularly since fans in those markets are aware they cannot (will not?) spend with the big market teams. And yes, I recognize they have a combined 0 World Series wins this century.

Still, if you've been one of the big market teams for decades, and then the organizational strategy seems to shift while the on-field product stagnates, I completely understand why the ownership has lost the benefit of the doubt and fans are angry. We have a passionate fan base that wants to win and spend money to show up to Fenway and buy streaming packages.

Hopefully the Sox contend more seriously in 2025 and these conversations are mostly moot.

 

[Mike473]

I'd bet it's as simple as Breslow wanting to assemble his own team, and he didn't really have time to get all his top choices in place when he took the job. And the embargo against raiding the Cubs staff cited above. It shouldn't be automatically interpreted as a negative on the folks getting let go.

About 7 years ago, I was let go from a job I demonstrably thrived at for 14 years when a new boss took over the division. He tried telling me "it's not that I don't like you, it's just a move I need to make" and did it so awkwardly that I spitefully hated him a while. I'd never been canned before and was embarrassed talking about it. Then I heard somebody in a similar situation describe the reason for their getting let go as "regime change", and almost instantly I felt better about the whole thing. Bosses could and should get to pick their own team, even if the team in place is doing the job.

I still hate the guy who laid me off, but because he's bad at strategy and an asshole and made himself super-rich cozying up to other assholes. But not because of spite. That's progress!

Had something similar happen to me years back. New owner let just about everyone go and brought in their own people. It was a tough thing to deal with. But, as years have passed, I came to accept the new boss had a lot of pressure to live up to expectations and didn't want to deal with getting to know and trust the people already working there, he wanted to hit the ground running with sure things. Fair enough. But, still sucked.

 

[simplicio]

Doesn't that describe this past offseason? And other than Giolito (YMMV if him being healthy was the difference between the Sox being a middling team or a contender) and trading for O'Neil (a good trade!), they did not do much to upgrade. And after the fact, the line seemed to be "well, no one actually wanted to play in Boston" and "injuries", the latter of which only seems to affect the Red Sox the last several years. So I guess my question is why would you expect next year to be different?

Only in hindsight. At the time there was a huge amount of uncertainty about who Giolito, Houck, Crawford, Whitlock, Wong, Grissom, Abreu, Rafaela, Duran, Hamilton and O'Neill actually were. We have a much clearer picture of what most of these guys can offer now, and a couple prospects knocking on the door in Campbell and Anthony who are more highly regarded than any of them ever were.