Your catchall JOHN HENRY AND THE SOX ARE SOOOO CHEAP!!! thread
- Thread starter BringBackMo
- Start date
You could very well be right.
However often times when you shop exclusively in the list of players that will only command one or two year deals, you're not likely to get the high end talent that is generally speaking necessary to contend for World Series titles, specifically in the AL East (but you could in the AL and NL central).
I don't necessarily disagree with you about the directive, at least in terms of the past few years. I'm wondering if that is more a function of how God awful Bloom's long term deals all ended up being or of not giving them out in general. Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about ONLY the mega deals, but more the complete lack of deals in the Lackey / Napoli / Victorino range. I hope it's much more the former. I kind of accept that you're not going to see long term deals to FA starting pitchers over 30 as Henry as pretty much been against this for the majority of his tenure here (Price being the exception, obviously).
The refusal to give out long term deals to hitters and medium term deals to middle class talent has been something else.
I'm sorry, I missed the thread you must also have started for all the other usual suspects to post their huzzahs about the brilliance of John Henry and the Red Sox in managing their budget and avoiding expensive contracts. Where can I find that?
Maybe you can also start a thread where everybody can complain about everybody else arguing the same things over and over again for the last five years.
To be fair, that’s what we all thought at this time last year. Here’s hoping we’re not wrong this time around.
I don't know that I'd use the word "exclusively." I think Henry's goal is for his high end talent to be developed "primarily" from within when it is young, cost-controlled, and relatively healthy.
We had a lot of God awful deals before Bloom (Crawford, Sandoval, etc.), who was hired to implement the philosophy, not craft it. He did his part to rebuild the farm system, but Henry clearly didn't trust him to lead the next stage of development (which is not unique to Chaim).
The Sox signed Story to a 6-year deal in early 2022, Yoshida to a 5-year deal later that year, and Devers to an 11-year deal in early 2023.
Certainly @pjheff - I'm sure every owner would like to have high end talent developed primarily from within and have it be cheaper.
It'll be interesting to see what they do this off-season. I too think that you're going to see some more big deals being made, and I'm not going to pretend to have any idea what they will be. At least I hope so. Maybe that will be trades and subsequent extensions (like Beckett, Gonzalez, etc), maybe it will be middle term deals (Lackey, Napoli, Victorino, etc), or maybe he will allow Breslow one shot at the FA pitching side (David Price).
Like you said, he clearly lost faith in Bloom implementing the next part of the plan (and I'm just saying that I actually get that based on the Story and Yoshida signings), though I find it very unlikely you're going to see the team win the World Series again based "primarily" on just buying, holding and extending. I'm sure I'm missing someone, but the Royals are the only team I can think of doing that all the way to a title in recent history. Maybe one of the Giants squads from the early 2010s, I don't recall those teams all that well to be honest. Admittedly, it's not like I watched much of those World Series.
But I do think if we see a continued approach of "primarily" shopping in the one and two year deal pile (for the record, I'm including obvious extension candidates in with free agents - as in if they deal a bunch of Logan Gilbert and extend him, I'd count that as a long term signing just like Beckett, for instance), you're going to see a continued trend of not winning the World Series.
It'll be interesting to see what they do this off-season. I too think that you're going to see some more big deals being made, and I'm not going to pretend to have any idea what they will be. At least I hope so. Maybe that will be trades and subsequent extensions (like Beckett, Gonzalez, etc), maybe it will be middle term deals (Lackey, Napoli, Victorino, etc), or maybe he will allow Breslow one shot at the FA pitching side (David Price).
Like you said, he clearly lost faith in Bloom implementing the next part of the plan (and I'm just saying that I actually get that based on the Story and Yoshida signings), though I find it very unlikely you're going to see the team win the World Series again based "primarily" on just buying, holding and extending. I'm sure I'm missing someone, but the Royals are the only team I can think of doing that all the way to a title in recent history. Maybe one of the Giants squads from the early 2010s, I don't recall those teams all that well to be honest. Admittedly, it's not like I watched much of those World Series.
But I do think if we see a continued approach of "primarily" shopping in the one and two year deal pile (for the record, I'm including obvious extension candidates in with free agents - as in if they deal a bunch of Logan Gilbert and extend him, I'd count that as a long term signing just like Beckett, for instance), you're going to see a continued trend of not winning the World Series.
As far as Bloom goes, I don’t think his experience was unique. Henry generally seems to look for a war-time consigliere (like Dombrowski) or a peace-time one (such as Cherington). It may be only Theo he trusted to do both.
Speaking of Theo, his vision was always a player development and scouting machine. I bet that Henry still trusts his instincts.
Last edited:
Yeah, Theo was a unicorn. For my money the best baseball executive of - at minimum - the last generation.
Of course Theo said that, but the thing that I've always remained so impressed about by Theo is that he knew exactly the right things to say - and also knew what was the best theoretical answer to give - but he also was confident enough to go out there and do something that flew in the face of everything that he said. The ultimate poker player in that regard.
He'd always talk about or allude to bullpen by committee or closer being a job description and not a skill (theoretically the right answer). Then what did he actually do? Sign Keith Foulke. Recognize the value of Papelbon (and keep paying him). Then went out and acquired the same in Chicago (Torres for Chapman).
He always talked about the idea of flexibility at the DH spot - and of course not only found David Ortiz but kept paying him much more than others would because he knew he had the luxury of doing as such.
Preached financial flexibility, but also signed some (at the time) massive deals.
He'd talk about the playoffs as a crapshoot (which is smart) but realized it was more of a poker game and knew how to read what generally allowed things to work in your favor the way you can't in craps (importance of front of the rotation starters, importance of closers, necessity of having the middle of the order presence, realizing that you kind of need to be "above average" across the board, etc).
He also discussed and understood the importance of the player development machine - but knew that part of that importance was in trading them away.
Though I try not to hold or grade anyone against Theo the way I try not to grade anyone against Pedro. I just appreciate that said greatness was on our side.
To bring back to present, I'm certain JWH does value Theo's insights (and he should), and I'm certain that's why he's back here. I also think that is a huge reason why Breslow got the job in the first place, and why I DO believe he was quite high on the list. Maybe not number 1 (could've been Byrnes, could've been Hazen, who knows), but I do believe that the plan was to go back to the Theo tree - and I think it was the right plan. Hopefully they chose one of the right guys (and I think they did) from said tree.
Of course Theo said that, but the thing that I've always remained so impressed about by Theo is that he knew exactly the right things to say - and also knew what was the best theoretical answer to give - but he also was confident enough to go out there and do something that flew in the face of everything that he said. The ultimate poker player in that regard.
He'd always talk about or allude to bullpen by committee or closer being a job description and not a skill (theoretically the right answer). Then what did he actually do? Sign Keith Foulke. Recognize the value of Papelbon (and keep paying him). Then went out and acquired the same in Chicago (Torres for Chapman).
He always talked about the idea of flexibility at the DH spot - and of course not only found David Ortiz but kept paying him much more than others would because he knew he had the luxury of doing as such.
Preached financial flexibility, but also signed some (at the time) massive deals.
He'd talk about the playoffs as a crapshoot (which is smart) but realized it was more of a poker game and knew how to read what generally allowed things to work in your favor the way you can't in craps (importance of front of the rotation starters, importance of closers, necessity of having the middle of the order presence, realizing that you kind of need to be "above average" across the board, etc).
He also discussed and understood the importance of the player development machine - but knew that part of that importance was in trading them away.
Though I try not to hold or grade anyone against Theo the way I try not to grade anyone against Pedro. I just appreciate that said greatness was on our side.
To bring back to present, I'm certain JWH does value Theo's insights (and he should), and I'm certain that's why he's back here. I also think that is a huge reason why Breslow got the job in the first place, and why I DO believe he was quite high on the list. Maybe not number 1 (could've been Byrnes, could've been Hazen, who knows), but I do believe that the plan was to go back to the Theo tree - and I think it was the right plan. Hopefully they chose one of the right guys (and I think they did) from said tree.
Theo was smart enough to know how an organization should be built in theory but also savvy enough to know what needs to be done to win in practice. I think Henry is too. Hopefully Breslow can move the organization in that direction.
As the various articles and reports genuinely seem to create a different note to this offseason approach: I still need to have it proven.
Soto makes so little sense for a team that’s been scraping the barrel for half decade that a complete pivot to a 40+mm/yr bad fielder effectively forever is just sooo preposterous.
The otherwise sober mediots (thinking Bradford and McAdam here most recently) talk as though meeting with Soto is some kind of actual commitment. No. It’s not at all.
it’s cost them some time in LA and about 100k in private flights and whatever internal resources put the pitch deck together. This meeting does NOT mean an unencumbered $500m contract is the next step, it just means they want to be seen to play in the game.
These exact same mediots are now creating some impression that the Sox were close on YY last year with a ‘contract in the 300m range’….which is just ridiculous to me. They were never competitive. I’m still calling complete BS on Soto, but maybe they buy a pitcher.
Soto makes so little sense for a team that’s been scraping the barrel for half decade that a complete pivot to a 40+mm/yr bad fielder effectively forever is just sooo preposterous.
The otherwise sober mediots (thinking Bradford and McAdam here most recently) talk as though meeting with Soto is some kind of actual commitment. No. It’s not at all.
it’s cost them some time in LA and about 100k in private flights and whatever internal resources put the pitch deck together. This meeting does NOT mean an unencumbered $500m contract is the next step, it just means they want to be seen to play in the game.
These exact same mediots are now creating some impression that the Sox were close on YY last year with a ‘contract in the 300m range’….which is just ridiculous to me. They were never competitive. I’m still calling complete BS on Soto, but maybe they buy a pitcher.
My feeling here is that I'm going to judge them by how they play this game, not necessarily whether they win it. If credible reporting comes out that they seriously offered something in the vicinity of 12-13 years/$550-600 million, but they lose out to the Mets who get up to $700m million or above, I am going to probably be encouraged overall and hopeful about what that says about the approach to the rest of the offseason and the coming few years.
The local reporters are not just wish casting. They are instead noting what they were hearing from sources at the GM meetings, which includes player agents. The same reporters were noting last season that agents were telling them that the Red Sox were not particularly involved in the free agent market, which turned out to be correct. Obviously, the proof will be in the team's actions. Failing to sign Soto won't bother me that much, as only one team is going to succeed in that quest. Failing to sign or trade for any of the available pitchers and position players that could improve the roster would be a huge disappointment. This team doesn't need more Giolito's and Grissom's.
For the record, I don’t think they are wish casting. They are reporting what they are hearing which is their job.
My only concern is that this seems like it might be a bit of media ingested helium that they are conflating with their opinions: two reasons.
As evidence Bradford and McAdam, both of whom I listen to and read regularly, are talking like this meeting itself demonstrates legitimate willingness to pay the price. This is their (wrong) opinion. It does not at all, just as meeting YY didn’t.
They both now seem to also represent that the Sox were close on Yamamoto in 300 range. They weren’t saying it at the time, that’s what has me looking at them sideways now.
Also, the basic long tail risk of a contract like this is just against the constitution of a bond ghoul. There are way less long term risk methods to get to 90 wins (assuming that part is credible).
Edit - thread doing its job of not having my Eeyore impersonation in the other ones…
My only concern is that this seems like it might be a bit of media ingested helium that they are conflating with their opinions: two reasons.
As evidence Bradford and McAdam, both of whom I listen to and read regularly, are talking like this meeting itself demonstrates legitimate willingness to pay the price. This is their (wrong) opinion. It does not at all, just as meeting YY didn’t.
They both now seem to also represent that the Sox were close on Yamamoto in 300 range. They weren’t saying it at the time, that’s what has me looking at them sideways now.
Also, the basic long tail risk of a contract like this is just against the constitution of a bond ghoul. There are way less long term risk methods to get to 90 wins (assuming that part is credible).
Edit - thread doing its job of not having my Eeyore impersonation in the other ones…
Last edited:
I don't think they are a real contender for Soto. I still think it is for show. It is true the Yankees don't always get the player they want, although if they are truly commited to getting a player, it is very rare they don't. That said, I can't imagine a scenario where the Yankees get out bid by Henry. Maybe the Mets, LA or some other team will do it, but the Yankees won't lose out to an AL East rival, especially Henry and the Red Sox. I hope that I am wrong, because I think he is a no brainer of a signing. I think it is more likely than not that the Sox do made a big signing this off season, but I also think it is very possible it will be a repeat of last offseason and we see a narritive change from the front office soon about the kids coming up and so on. We will have our answer soon. Either way, I think the Red Sox are moving in the right direction, it is only a matter of how fast we get there.
Just to keep my griping contained to a single thread as much as possible : )
First, an admission I was wr wr wrong about their genuine effort with Soto.
However, they’re still wearing the cheap monicker.
Spending money is a management commitment. ’Spending’ from the prospect pool is a check cashed by future fans, costs ownership nothing at all, and really is just a commitment to losing later unless backed up by money.
FO still can spend, sure, but so far all you’ve done is cash in two years of last place AL East finishes plus a couple high end lottos to season.
I gave it a 9, I’m glad they did it, it changes the entire season.
They are still cheap….extend Crochet, get another pitcher, add RH power, do something else please.
First, an admission I was wr wr wrong about their genuine effort with Soto.
However, they’re still wearing the cheap monicker.
Spending money is a management commitment. ’Spending’ from the prospect pool is a check cashed by future fans, costs ownership nothing at all, and really is just a commitment to losing later unless backed up by money.
FO still can spend, sure, but so far all you’ve done is cash in two years of last place AL East finishes plus a couple high end lottos to season.
I gave it a 9, I’m glad they did it, it changes the entire season.
They are still cheap….extend Crochet, get another pitcher, add RH power, do something else please.
You seriously don't think that what they will potentially be spending to extend Crochet will cost ownership nothing at all?
Of course it will, but it will be much less cash since they're buying out arb years. A Crochet extension at below market rate for FA pitchers doesn't temper criticism that they won't spent market rate.
That said, at least they found a way to add elite talent. Sezwho is also saying that they're borrowing talent against future years, which they are, but that can be restocked.
I think you’re discounting that a top pitcher’s pre-30 seasons are not only likely to be cheaper than those after 30, they are also likely to be better.
The Mets paid Pedro Martinez a higher AAV than the Red Sox did.
I'm pretty sure that the first extension that Duquette gave Pedro post-trade was the most expensive AAV for a starting pitcher at the time. Of course the Mets paid more AAV six years later.
edit: I could be wrong on the Pedro deal. Maybe Clemens' deal was still higher. It was a ton though.
The move also likey means they will be paying more for catching over the course of the next few years, but no need to factor that into the narative.
My only narrative is that for all the sturm and drang they have invested nothing, just borrowed from an uncertain future.
This could be repaid with money, or as we’ve seen, it could be replenished by a half decade of losing (sorry .500 yay!) seasons.
All the prattling on from the FO has, to this point, only cashed in on the value of losing season’s top draft picks.
Sure they could resign him to 30x8 or whatever. Sure they could attach 10m to every trade and quickly restock the farm. Sure, they could buy a bat. All that could happen as soon as today…but they haven’t opened that wallet for anything at all.
This could be repaid with money, or as we’ve seen, it could be replenished by a half decade of losing (sorry .500 yay!) seasons.
All the prattling on from the FO has, to this point, only cashed in on the value of losing season’s top draft picks.
Sure they could resign him to 30x8 or whatever. Sure they could attach 10m to every trade and quickly restock the farm. Sure, they could buy a bat. All that could happen as soon as today…but they haven’t opened that wallet for anything at all.
The data I have seen - and I haven't checked it for accuracy - suggests catching is relatively inexpensive whereas pitching is the most expensive. Their organizational philosophy is pretty clearly to avoid sourcing fully priced pitching via free agency and instead use money to fill the less premium positions. Its a rational approach but people who love catching continuity probably aren't going to be pleased.
Nice sleight of hand, calling a Crochet extension "below market for FA pitchers." Of course it is, since he isn't. But it probably won't be "below market" for a pitcher of his age, caliber, service-time and control.
Duquette without question spent big on Pedro to extend him but it was for Pedro's age 27-32 seasons (Clemens was 35 at the time the Sox got Pedro). That's the key here. In the long run, Pedro's contract turned out to be a bargain for his prime years. Randy Johnson was a free agent after 1998, same as Pedro would have been absent his extension. Johnson wound up getting 6/82M from the DBacks in two separate deals over the same stretch that Pedro was signed for 6/67.6M (1999-2004). Mike Hampton (8/121) and Kevin Brown (7/105) got huge deals as well during the course of Pedro's deal.
There is no sleight of hand going on.
The topic was that a Crochet trade doesn't prove that ownership isn't cheap. Someone replied "an extension does". And I replied that no, it doesn't prove that they're ok with paying market rate when an extension of a guy with 2 arb years being bought out is not really market rate. They still haven't signed a top player at full market rate. That's not a complaint; it's an observation. Most will say "who cares, he's the BPA at a position of need", and I'm migrating around to that point of view. But I understand what Sez was saying.
Yeah, I think the reality is that the pitching market is the least "efficient" from a pricing perspective. It notably is why Chaim Bloom didnt like investing in it anywhere. That strategy is great for a hedge fund, but as we have seen less so when you actually need to have effective pitching to win.
And likely more in years and money than the "market rate" that a few of the other names available will be seeing. But they're cheap because they haven't done it and filled out the rest of their needs by mid December.
It IS "market rate" for that "market," otherwise Crochet wont take it.
Under the convenient "cheap" construct, "not signing FA pitchers over 30 to longterm deals" isnt "paying market rate" AND somehow paying a Crochet what *his* market dictates also "isnt paying market rate," ergo the Sox NEVER pay market rate
Err, saying something is market for a guy who is not actually on any sort of market swallows the definition. Signing Crochet to an extension would be great; it doesnt show anything about ownerships willingness to get out of their comfort zone and pay open market rates for talent.
For me personally, not that anyone would or should care, getting him signed to a long term deal does move the needle and would represent real commitment. Pricing the couple cheap years won’t actually take much of the sting out of the overall contract, or so I imagine.
They’re still cheap because, to this point, they’ve made no financial commitment. Could change any day, I hope it does.
(Edit - nm, now I understand what the second part means)
If they offer him a 7-year extension at 10M per, they will be called cheap. If they offer him a 7 year extension at 25m/yr, they will be called nothing because that's not a market.
Concerning the "check cashed by future fans" and "commitment to losing later unless backed up by money," couldn't you make a similar argument for the non-monetary costs of carrying an ancient pitcher on your roster? Looking at Fried years 7 and 8, plus the lost draft pick from the QO.
Shouldn't all that matter is they give him a seven year deal? I get the arguments about "it's not our money" when we discuss overpays and what not, but the reverse is true too, no? If they sign a guy that makes the team significantly better to a long term deal, why do we care if he gets $1 a year or $100,000,000 a year? It's not our money and the player agreed to it.
The siege mentality in this post is off the hook.
1. If they extend him at any rate, pretty much everyone will the thrilled.
2. Extending him at "extension rates" rather "FA market rates" is not proof that they will pay "FA market rates"
These two statements are not in opposition.
That is correct. But "they wont pay FA market rates" is different than they wont pay "market rate," which is the claim I responded to.
There are (at least) two distinct markets. (Yes, I understand that trying to extend your own guy isn't strictly-speaking a "market" in the Adam Smith sense. But you still gotta pay something that reflects some external realities, like other players' pay, to get the guy signed). And, you are correct that there is no proof that they'll pay "FA market rate." It's also pretty clear to anyone who is paying attention that they are not signing pitchers over 30 to long term deals.* Some people think it's because they are cheap. Some consider the fact that such deals might be bad baseball deals.
*I think most agree they made a real attempt at not-old-Soto. But for some, I assume that "they didn't get him"="they wont pay," so the "they'll never pay" position remains firm.
Fair enough. I was trying to elaborate on another poster's point about adding talent through flexing financial might. We might not be done flexing.
Yeah, that’s an interesting point and you could make the argument. It was that sunk cost fear that had me conflicted by the Soto pursuit, as I don’t trust them to spend out of hardship.
I guess the difference is holding onto prospects now while you spend some money would actually show commitment to a sustained future. They need to use all arrows in their quiver, like cash, and not just the Redbird approved ones.
Side note - Why are they (Redbird) in this business, honestly? Do we fans really represent the best way to extract money for rich people? Never mind, there’s really no other answer.
This.
A team does an extension because it gives them a better price point than an open auction. That's essentially the main reason to offer one.
The main reason could also be because they probably prefer (younger, all-prime) Mr. Extend, vs older might-well-suck for several years Mr. FA."
Absolutely but the main reason they do this is that they have decided they want to keep the player and want to try to lock them in at a favorable contract.
Without an extension they still get those pre-FA years.
I'd like to think that FSG took the last five years to reset the franchise for long term, sustainable winning. The Sox traded three years (2022-2024) to be in the situation that they're in now. Chaim Bloom was brought in to rebuild a farm system, and I think he did a decent job. It now makes sense to have Breslow, a former pitcher, Breslow rebuild the rotation with Bloom's war chest.
I think Breslow should trade whatever it takes (Mayer and/or Campbell, etc.) for another stud pitcher, like Logan Gilbert. He led all of MLB in games started (33), innings pitched (208.2), and WHIP (0.89) last year. The Luis Castillo for Casas deal makes sense as well. In general, the Red Sox should be willing to trade a couple prospects for a sure thing. Keep Roman Anthony and Jarren Duran.
Gilbert/Castillo
Crochet
Houck
Giolito
Bello
Crawford
Those top 3 are competitive with most playoff contenders, without a large expenditure. Lucas Giolito and Bello could be wildcards and push this team into the playoffs.
I think Breslow should trade whatever it takes (Mayer and/or Campbell, etc.) for another stud pitcher, like Logan Gilbert. He led all of MLB in games started (33), innings pitched (208.2), and WHIP (0.89) last year. The Luis Castillo for Casas deal makes sense as well. In general, the Red Sox should be willing to trade a couple prospects for a sure thing. Keep Roman Anthony and Jarren Duran.
Gilbert/Castillo
Crochet
Houck
Giolito
Bello
Crawford
Those top 3 are competitive with most playoff contenders, without a large expenditure. Lucas Giolito and Bello could be wildcards and push this team into the playoffs.
I think he should sign the top tier FA pitcher on the market and keep our good, young position guys.Corbin and Crochet with our other starters is a very competitive rotation.
You'd have to get rid of one, though. They have Houck, Giolito, Crawford, and Bello.
I would hate to trade Campbell or Casas, and I really don’t want to trade tor a Mariners pitcher. They play home games in the pitching equivalent of Coors, and I think that’s more the reason they have so many effective pitchers with near league-leading numbers
Is Giolito supposed to be ready by April? If not, that seems like it’ll sort itself out. If he is supposed to be ready (or gets healthy and everyone else is still healthy), Crawford can go to the pen
No you don't. One is our swing guy 6th starter. Usually a team needs 6 to 8 starters throughout a year.
1+, although at the right price….certainly. Hold onto Anthony, Campbell, Casas (at least for this year to see if he can play a whole year and be what his potential has been). I’d consider sending Mayer somewhere in the right deal. Happy to deal Abreu, Crawford, other prospects for quality pitching or hitting….even if it’s stapled to a moderately bad contract to improve the quality part.
They will need to trade some of these guys for true upgrades. Don't get too attached to your favorite prospect. Using them as currency is clearly part of their plan.
A rotation of Burnes, Crochet, Houck, Bello, and Giolito (or Crawford) is more than competitive. That's a hell of a group, especially if Bello takes the next (expected) leap forward.
(I don't expect Burnes to be on Boston, by the way...this is just a "what if" scenario)