Because the Yankees are smart and trade prospects for established players who help the major league club versus stockpiling for some future cost-controlled core.
Your catchall JOHN HENRY AND THE SOX ARE SOOOO CHEAP!!! thread
- Thread starter BringBackMo
- Start date
Also because nearly half their lineup and pitching this year was homegrown so it's an incorrect statement
Cool how’d they get the other half? Smart of them to draft Cole, Soto, Chisholm, Cortes, Stanton and many of their other WAR leaders.
I’m not against home grown talent. I think it needs to be supplemented with proven major league talent.
I propose changing the name of this thread to “Beatings will continue until morale improves”
It feels like we’re through the looking glass, where the reaction to the reaction to the reaction to the moves of the front office is now supposed to be removed from regular posting about… the moves of the front office.
It feels like we’re through the looking glass, where the reaction to the reaction to the reaction to the moves of the front office is now supposed to be removed from regular posting about… the moves of the front office.
Home grown used to be the way to go, until buying talent at the talent store became legal.
This.
I get that it can be a little annoying when people drop the "I'll believe it when I see it" type responses in FA threads this offseason. I wish it'd curtail a bit as well. However, this is what the FO has wrought.
We can't change what they've done the past 5 years, but to me this offseason is where the buck stops. They either make some big moves - both trades and meaningful FA signings - or we all admit the goal is not to win titles anymore. We'll know within ~3 months.
Honestly the store bought is just too good these days. Hits too hard. I miss the old home grown mid-tier. Too much exit velocity causes spin rates for me.
Yup. Prospects, LT room, and good targets are aligned. Put up, or shut up. Unless we've all now come to accept 7-8 year rebuilds from a top 5 revenue franchise.
Think maybe there's a nepo baby rich kid who might buy the team with his inheritance and then staff it with his drinking buddies? That seems like a good time. We could get 40-50 years out of that kind of ownership.
It's been 6 years and the Red Sox have been truly competitive in only one of those years. That's about the time that John Henry discovered he could make money with a soccer team in Europe - now he is involved with the PGA and LIV in the golf world. I remain convinced that we are part of a grand spread sheet that he checks every so often. He is a businessman and as long as his assets are making money with no particularly glaring risks I don't think he will change his methods. It's true that an investment in the farm seems to be paying off but the odds of ALL the top farm hands being solid major leaguers are pretty long - heck I don't think Mayer has come close to playing a full season yet as a pro. I will gladly change my mind the first time he signs a Fried or a Byrnes and shows a willingness to trade young unproven assets for proven major leaguers even if he catches flack.
He bought Liverpool in 2010, but yeah, that's been a distraction from the Red Sox being a contender. Well, except for the two World Series they've won since "discovering" soccer.
Josh Byrnes left because he was blocked by Theo Epstein and has a pretty sweet gig with the Dodgers. I suppose they could make him a Godfather offer, but I don't know if he's available.
Eric Byrnes would be a relatively inexpensive acquisition that might not say much about the team's willingness to spend money.
Last edited:
Also, how distracting could soccer be? You don’t really even need to pay attention until there’s a corner kick.
César Puello, Danny Santana, Abraham Almonte, Raimel Tapia… Byrnes may have been an improvement over some recent Red Sox outfielders, especially if baseball really is a marathon and not a sprint.
“Based on the results of a linear regression, a team with a relative salary of 100 (meaning that its payroll in year t is equal to the average payroll in year t) would be expected to have a winning percentage of 0.500. In contrast, a team with a relative salary of 110 (meaning that its payroll in year t is 10% higher than the average payroll in year t) would be expected to have a winning percentage of 0.509.”
That’s the difference between 81 and 82 wins, almost completely irrelevant.
I have a theory that money spent behind the scenes is just as important as payroll, but those numbers aren’t public and also it’s a lot of the same teams spending big both places.
My favorite of these is the Phillies, a juggernaut now but whose fans witnessed this decade of futility.
2011 - 102-60 .630 W-L% (Lost NLDS)
2012 - 81-81 .500 W-L%
2013 - 73-89 .451 W-L%
2014 - 73-89 .451 W-L%
2015 - 63-99 .389 W-L%
2016 - 71-91 .438 W-L%
2017 - 66-96 .407 W-L%
2018 - 80-82 .484 W-L%
2019 - 81-81 .500 W-L%
2020 - 28-32 .467 W-L%
2021 - 82-80 .506 W-L%
2022 - 87-75 .537 W-L% (Lost WS)
2023 - 90-72 .556 W-L% (Lost NLCS)
2024 - 95-67 .586 W-L% (Lost NLDS)
One reason that took so long is how poorly they drafted. They grabbed J.P. Crawford (traded for Segura) in 2013, Aaron Nola (1.7, a huge bright spot) and Rhys Hoskins (5th round) in 2014, and Bohm at 1.3 in 2018 and Stott in 2019 (1.14). But that’s weak overall.
Additionally, that piece is primarily concerned not with how spending more in payroll in a specific season leads to winning more games during that specific season. Everyone knows that it often does to some degree, which the paper’s authors acknowledge by stating “as expected.” No, what that piece is primarily concerned with is the optimal way to allocate payroll for success. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that in baseball you are better off spreading the spending around on the roster, while in basketball, you’re better off concentrating most of it on a few highly paid players.
I didn't bother clicking through but my point is actually that a lot of what MLB teams spend is not on payroll, that impacts results, and we have very little idea of who is spending how much. For instance, whoever figured out that Luke Weaver was a good signing at 2/4.5 last January is adding a ton of value to the Yankees, in fact that signing probably ended up saving their season (the back end of their bullpen was a disaster late in the season).
The study found that spending more correlates with more wins. This is a fact. You can apply your one off examples but it indicates that spending can improve the chances of winning.
The bolded is correct but the paper still argues that if you spent more on your roster - and don't concentrate it on one/a a few players - you will tend to win more. I get it, you really like the small-market, grow your prospects (and hope they all pan out - which again, hasn't happened yet and may not) approach but some of us simply don't believe the Boston Red Sox should be run like the Rays or A's or even a middle market team.
Sorry, yes. Very much agree, and that’s an excellent example. Was simply addressing the fact that the paper isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the “spend more, achieve better results” approach.
You continue to caricature my arguments, and that’s fine. This thread was created for exactly these kinds of posts. But for the record, I certainly am not endorsing an approach to running the Red Sox like the A’s or the Rays.
It very much is a ringing endorsement of spending more tends to achieve better results. And so we are clear (for the trillionth time here) spending wildly does not equate to winning - we all know this. But money does tend to buy wins.
You'll be relieved to learn that the Red Sox, with a payroll this year $40m over average, are not run like the Rays or the A's or even a middle market team.
Last edited:
Why was that quote attributed to me?! I didn’t write that!
This is what I wrote:
“I get that it can be a little annoying when people drop the "I'll believe it when I see it" type responses in FA threads this offseason. I wish it'd curtail a bit as well. However, this is what the FO has wrought.
We can't change what they've done the past 5 years, but to me this offseason is where the buck stops. They either make some big moves - both trades and meaningful FA signings - or we all admit the goal is not to win titles anymore. We'll know within ~3 months.”
I’ll assume quoting me for something I didn’t write was a mistake.
Without a correlation coefficient, that conclusion is basically meaningless. Common sense would indicate that it’s true, but that’s not why those folks (undergrads?) would conduct that study.
Fair enough, thank you.
As you said, its kind of common sense. If you have lots of apples, you have lots of potential bites. RedBird/FSG has been stingy but its their produce budget.
I have no dog in this fight over a blog post written by a couple undergrads, but both the effect size and correlation coefficient are in the article and the original pull quote.
I think us and the experts would agree that they exceeded expectations in 2021. They also traded for the best bat that changed teams at the deadline and the expectation was that they also needed a First Baseman over and above that. They didn't put all their chips into the middle in 2021 and really haven't since come remotely close since 2018.
Last off season was a bitter pill after what turned out to be empty promises. This off season feels different. I sure hope it is. That being said, not getting Soto would be a bummer but if the Sox revamp the pitching and add a little on the offensive and defensive sides they may contend. The above and Soto would give Boston a shot against the juggernaut which is LA. Can Fenway come alive with BEAT LA chants in October and not just cheers for Mookie.
So you agree that they are positioned in a manner that would lead to legitimate complaints if they don't spend this offseason? In which case, why does the thread exist?
It exists as a place for all the usual suspects to post their complaints about the cheapness of John Henry and the Red Sox. Nothing more, nothing less. Welcome!
Somewhat to the point of this thread, what happened between 2019 and 2020 that preceded them becoming a contender? They hired Dave Dombrowski and committed to spending money again (they had been top 5 back in their prior competitive time frame and had slowly drifted outside of the top 10). They have again consistently been in the top 5 since becoming a contender again.
YMMV as they clearly were a poorly run team pre-DD, but the ascent was built significantly on spending a lot of money. Of course, this also provides a great example that it can turn quickly once a team decides to spend and Soto is a better version of Harper who was the first big Phillies acquisition so there could be that parallel as well.
They should be able to do it without the decade long run of bad results as they weren’t as poorly managed and have way more minor league talent then the Phillies did when DD took over, but that assumes they start spending again this (or perhaps next) offseason.
So the R squared is only .38? My god, don't make me get out my favorite chart from Nassim Taleb about how relevant a correlation is with an R squared under .5. Another problem with this analysis is that teams with good records tend to spend more after they win. So in years 2-4 after you win you have to pay more money to keep your players - so in that instance causation runs in the OTHER direction. Winning means you spend more to keep the same players.
It's impressive to so precisely thread the needle between being arrogant, patronizing and childish, I'll grant you that.
No, this thread exists to give you an opportunity to mock people on this site who hold an opinion about ownership spending that is different from yours. This is why you have roughly 15% of the posts in the thread. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is zero need to antagonize your fellow SoSH posters like this. We all root for the same team.
For those I have antagonized, my apologies. The rehash of the same old complaints about the front office that dominate every thread about every possible offseason move are exhausting and infuriating. I started this thread as a form of satire but clearly have taken it too far. For the record, yes, I will be very disappointed if the Sox do not make significant acquisitions this off-season now that their window is open. And yes, I will agree at that point that there needs to be a change with the organization. It's pretty clear to me that isn't going to be the case. The Sox have been building toward this moment for a number of seasons and it is self-evident to me that this has been the plan all along. But if I'm wrong about that--if they don't add significantly to the team and compete next year--I will acknowledge it and change my opinion. But if the Sox do follow through here, if they do add significantly to the team while keeping their minor league system stocked, I hope others will similarly change their opinion. OK, that's it. Apologies once again. Lock the thread!
It’s pretty clear to me that the Red Sox will make significant acquisitions this offseason in order to GFIN this season.
All good. I’d like to see this thread remain open. We can close it after we sign Soto
That's what I thought, which is why that sentence confused me a bit. Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, just making sure that I wasn't missing something.
It makes sense that spending more correlates with winning more games. But, while winning games has a value in and of itself, going from 77 to 83 wins is less useful than going from 83 to 90. I'm on the side of they aren't cheap, they are/were waiting to do the big(ger) spending to make that second jump. We shall see, as it appears that time has arrived.
Last edited: