It's four recent championships but whatever.

Well, you NEED a shortstop. Otherwise, alot of balls get though the infield.

It's four recent championships but whatever.

Contrary to popular belief, flags actually only fly for 15 years.

Well, you NEED a shortstop. Otherwise, alot of balls get though the infield.

Do you have some numbers to actually back that up though?

The Red Sox decided early on to not pay for Lester, Mookie, and Bogearts.

That extension with Bogaerts a few years ago was just to throw us off the scent!

Contrary to popular belief, flags actually only fly for 15 years.

In reality, it's probably less. Is anyone deciding to attend or watch a game today base on the team's record 10 years ago? 5?

To the extent past success matters it's b/c it signals current team quality. If a team wins the World Series, and then goes all Marlins on their roster, is anyone going to show up b/c of the flag?

That extension with Bogaerts a few years ago was just to throw us off the scent!

That was a team-friendly contract.

Don't get me wrong, the owners will spend money. They just don't spend it wisely. They are reactionary, not planful.

There is also no loyalty. Win a championshiop, two years later you get the boot. Thie happened to both Cherrington and Dombrowski. It's a very "what have you done for me lately" ownership group. Which is fine but eventually it's not just perception, it's reality.

And the reality is, the team isn't people friendly. It treats employees well until it doesn't need you anymore. That attitude will catch up to you eventually.

And yes, it's four. Brain cramp. :D

Is anyone deciding to attend or watch a game today base on the team's record 10 years ago? 5?

It matters. Today's twentysomething premium ticket buyers are the ones who got into the habit of following the team when it was good during their adolescent years. Not every single person obviously, but it can make a difference of a couple thousand per game.

‘Heavy discussions’ between Red Sox & Bogaerts have ‘momentum’ is the latest report. Not sure if that’s just window dressing - Boston could have made a competitive offer earlier - but perhaps public opinion had an effect.

‘Heavy discussions’ between Red Sox & Bogaerts have ‘momentum’ is the latest report. Not sure if that’s just window dressing - Boston could have made a competitive offer earlier - but perhaps public opinion had an effect

No discernible effect at least, Xander signed with the Padres.

#### the Red Sox.

It's reportedly $280M/11 with a full no-trade but no options or opt-outs.

And Devers will be next. #### this team and #### John Henry.

Red Sox sometimes pay top dollar for free agents, like Price and JD Martinez.

They will extend their home grown stars, but only if the player is willing to take an extreme home team discount, like Pedroia, or sign short term deals like Ortiz.

I can remember the last time they offered a market rate long term deal to any of their home grown stars.

Red Sox sometimes pay top dollar for free agents, like Price and JD Martinez.

They will extend their home grown stars, but only if the player is willing to take an extreme home team discount, like Pedroia, or sign short term deals like Ortiz.

I can remember the last time they offered a market rate long term deal to any of their home grown stars.

I know you said "home grown," but I think the Chris Sale extension fits the spirit of the concept.

Obvious next step:

Devers + Sale to the Giants for David Villar, Luis Matos, and Eric Silva.

Hope the savings are spent wisely.

Red Sox sometimes pay top dollar for free agents, like Price and JD Martinez.

Other than the near-tautology that any FA you signed, you signed at "top dollar" in that you probably made the best offer ... JD Martinez was not "top dollar." That was supposedly all about the Red Sox refusing to give in to his 5/$125 demands, leading to the 3/$72 plus 2 player options at about $20 contract. The Red Sox nickeled and dimed to save themselves about $10 M ... then tried to nickel and dime Betts and Bogaerts and took advantage of the Betts trade to get out from under half of Price. That's a pattern of behavior that suggests the Red Sox will not pay top dollar for FAs or extensions and haven't been willing to do so at least since Price and Sale blew up in their face (which might make anybody skittish).

Granted, they paid top dollar (and then some) for Jansen but I don't think we got a whiff of a hint of a serious rumor that they were interested in Verlander, deGrom or Rodon.

The Red Sox nickeled and dimed to save themselves about $10 M ... then tried to nickel and dime Betts and Bogaerts and took advantage of the Betts trade to get out from under half of Price.

In retrospect, the Red Sox didn’t get that much from the Dodgers farm system for Betts. I wonder to what degree that was the cost of getting rid of Price’s contract or did they just miss on their evaluation of the Dodgers prospects? Or both?

It's funny because the return on Betts looked pretty good after one season.

Verdugo turned in the equivalent of a 5 WAR season, with 4 more to go under team control, and Jeter Downs hadn't yet crapped the bed.

I know batting average isn't everything, but Downs hit .154 for the Red Sox last season after hitting .197 at AAA.

I know batting average isn't everything, but Downs hit .154 for the Red Sox last season after hitting .197 at AAA.

And .190 in 2021 at AAA. BA is everything when it's that bad in the minors. A good prospect has to be able to hit .275 against miLB pitching. Has anyone with a sub-.250 BA in the minors ever turned into something offensively?

I dunno. Jack Cust hit 267 in 3000 PA in AAA. But it was loud (almost 900 OPS) .267. So his .242 avg in the majors was not a surprise, nor was his very useful >800 OPS in a brief career.

The Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2018. They also won the World Series in 2013. In 2007, they won the World Series. The World Series winners in 2004: the Red Sox.

Please sign my team up for this sort of incompetence!

The Boston Red Sox won the World Series in 2018. They also won the World Series in 2013. In 2007, they won the World Series. The World Series winners in 2004: the Red Sox.

Please sign my team up for this sort of incompetence!

I get what you're saying. But didn't you read the part about the various GMs who won those championships being shown the door at some point afterwards? The horror of that experience for us fans isn't worth a thousand championships!

Connor Wong might turn out to be the best Sox player from the Betts trade. Good athlete, good clubhouse guy. Kurt Suzuki type career is possible.

The best Sox player. (Cries into beer)

24/25 - I've said the same a lot, but I do kind of wonder if the sort of churn the Red Sox have had at all levels (players, coaching, front office) has a cumulative effect that's hard to see until the whole thing collapses, or even if the organization is just lucky that all those resets have gone as well as they did. Like, an organization that successful shouldn't be changing directions that often, and eventually you're going to get a bad fit or such a reputation for chaos that it keeps people away.

Another thing I wonder is if Henry and the rest of ownership has kind of disengaged. They've had the thrill of breaking the curse and the first championship, but everyone from their first decade are gone, and they just don't feel the same about the team without Pedroia, Ortiz, and the like (it might also explain why Henry pushed Bloom to bring Cora back; he's a connection to when owning the team was a real thrill rather before the business side took over). You don't become a billionaire by staying sentimental or emotional for long, and maybe the Red Sox are no longer the shiny new toy that's more fun than increasing one's net worth.

I still think 2018 was a super fluky year - everything broke right particularly on the P&D side of the team. IMO it's been bad for the Red Sox long term b/c they treated it as validating an organizational culture/process that was actually in steady decline since 2013.

24/25 - I've said the same a lot, but I do kind of wonder if the sort of churn the Red Sox have had at all levels (players, coaching, front office) has a cumulative effect that's hard to see until the whole thing collapses, or even if the organization is just lucky that all those resets have gone as well as they did. Like, an organization that successful shouldn't be changing directions that often, and eventually you're going to get a bad fit or such a reputation for chaos that it keeps people away.

I think they got lucky that all those resets went so well. But I also think whatever churn from, say, the pre-Dombrowski period, has basically zero leftover cumulative effect anymore. But more recent churn could have an effect on reputation, etc.

I still think 2018 was a super fluky year - everything broke right particularly on the P&D side of the team. IMO it's been bad for the Red Sox long term b/c they treated it as validating an organizational culture/process that was actually in steady decline since 2013.

This is a new one! They validated the approach that led to 3 fluky years of success by ... firing the front office. Something that devious could only be hatched by Larry Lucchino. I've said it before, I knew his "retirement" was a sham!

Eh, you’re strawmanning me. It’s more of an ownership mindset about how much to spend and whether or not to try to keep up with the joneses.

You all mock, and I admit I have never liked this ownership, but Henry's hedge fund background is a shaky basis on which to build a solid business and, given the proposed Liverpool sale and the difficulties hedge funds in general have faced since about 2015 (and are worse this year) I think he's in a cash crunch and will shortly try to sell the Sox, clearing long contracts off the books before he does it.

Otherwise, Bloom is completely incompetent, and I think that's the less likely possibility.

Eh, you’re strawmanning me. It’s more of an ownership mindset about how much to spend and whether or not to try to keep up with the joneses.

I found your post to be incoherent, so I was ####-posting not strawmanning.

Your clarification doesn't really help me. If 2018 validated a high payroll and keeping up with the joneses, why did they go against that just a year later?

Connor Wong might turn out to be the best Sox player from the Betts trade. Good athlete, good clubhouse guy. Kurt Suzuki type career is possible.

Sure, I mean it's possible, but Suzuki already had accumulated 10 WAR (half his career total) in just a shade under 500 games through the age of 26. Wong, not so much.

The Epstein era was fairly successful, he got fired (perhaps unfairly) in the wake of the beer and chicken meltdown; Cherington is the GM who got lucky in 2013, otherwise his tenure was pretty bad. Dombrowski was also successful, 2018 had nothing to do with luck he had built a winner. Dombro got fired as the sun set on that core group, the minor league system was barren and the tax and draft implications from the his spending had put the team in a non-competitive position. The jury is out on Bloom, he probably got lucky in 2021, but he has also improved the MiL systems and cleared out a lot of dead money. The team certainly seems poised to have a sustainable long-term spending plan. In a bubble all the managerial terminations were justified but Epstein probably had eared more rope. Cherington wasn't very good and Dombrowski followed a blueprint that leads to success but also has consequences. I wouldn't want to be a Philly or Padre's fan in 4 or 5 years, and it isn't obvious that the Yankees or Dodgers won't be saddled with huge underwater contracts that impact their ability to compete.

I'm disappointed that the Sox mishandled the X negotiation, but I think they are justifiably gun shy about big money long term contracts, and I think you can make a good argument that there is better financial efficiency in a team development philosophy where you shop the mid-tier free agent/trade market and hope your farm system produces a small stream of impact players. This philosophy probably mitigates the variance of risk, which should provide consistency, while providing opportunity for high outcome amplitude when all the pieces come together.


YEAR WINS PLACE Decision Maker playoffs?
2008 95 2 Epstein lost in champ
2009 95 2 Epstein lost in division
2010 89 3 Epstein n/a
2011 90 3 Epstein n/a
2012 69 5 Cher n/a
2013 97 1 Cher n/a
2014 71 5 Cher n/a
2015 78 5 Dom n/a
2016 93 1 Dom lost in division
2017 93 1 Dom lost in division
2018 108 1 Dom won WS
2019 84 3 Dom n/a
2020 24 5 Bloom n/a
2021 92 2 Bloon lost in champ
2022 78 5 Bloom n/a

2015 should be listed for Cherington, or at least a split.

I'm disappointed that the Sox mishandled the X negotiation, but I think they are justifiably gun shy about big money long term contracts, and I think you can make a good argument that there is better financial efficiency in a team development philosophy where you shop the mid-tier free agent/trade market and hope your farm system produces a small stream of impact players. This philosophy probably mitigates the variance of risk, which should provide consistency, while providing opportunity for high outcome amplitude when all the pieces come together.

I think you are probably right on most points here.

Thing is, I don't want the team I root for to be obsessed with "better financial efficiency" above all else. Baseball (or any sport) is not just a business. I'm tired of good-to-excellent players that are fun to watch and fun to root for being shown the door early because resigning them may not be the most "financially efficient" thing to do.

Since they are, I have slid pretty seamlessly into a more "financially efficient" mode for myself as regards the Sox: since I don't enjoy the team as much without the well-liked, still-good players that I became attached to being let go in one way or another because they are deemed too expensive, I don't go to games anymore, I rarely watch games on TV anymore and primarily follow them from afar.