It's a couple of clicks to get to the Silverman-Kennedy conversation . . . "productive conversations" and similar noncommittal statements. Which I suppose is what he's required to do but after the Betts debacle it rings hollow, like they're already laying the groundwork to say they tried but didn't want to hamstring the franchise and were simply outbid and all those excuses that don't in any way make losing great young talent feel like anything but frustrating setbacks.

I try to be optimistic but the last few years of mgmt decisions don't give me too much basis for that optimism. "strong farm system" is great and all but I also want to have faith that the Sox will keep them and not turn into Tampa Bay of the North.

I'm not sure ownership really cares what fans think about all of this, but even assuming that's true, you could argue the current payroll state is far different than when the Betts thing went down. While that's not a *good* excuse for why they felt they had to deal Betts, it's *an* excuse.

Now, though, the Red Sox could certainly afford to keep one or both of Devers and Bogaerts and would *not* hamstring the club payroll to do it; the only real question is whether they want to pay market rate or not.

(And yes, I know that in the real world John Henry has more than ample $ to spend what he pleases and still light his cigars with $100 bills, they could afford a $20 million player at every key position... and that cries of "but the payroll!" are laughable.)

I do wonder what the possible sale of Liverpool means in all of this. Even if they get an 5x valuation on a sale (instead of the talked-about 10x), he'll have more $ than Scrooge McDuck in profit, though I doubt any of it comes back into the Red Sox payroll.

And of course I do now start to wonder what a post-Henry Red Sox would look like--like what sort of crazy rich lunatic/consortium would buy the Red Sox? It seems while no one is happy with ownership now, the situation could be far, far worse (see pre-Henry Red Sox period; any number of other MLB ownership groups).

Some things I think about the ownership:

--They are willing to spend up to and at times beyond the tax threshold.
--They treat the team like a business and therefore want to make money from it.
--They believe that winning leads to profits.

Some things I'm not sure about:

--Although they understand that certain players are important to fans, beyond just winning, I don't know if that affects their decision making. They've said they felt they made a mistake with Lester, but then also traded away Mookie. Their offer to Bogaerts during the season also looked a lot like the offer they made to Lester (far worse IMHO). (Prior to that: Nomar, Pedro, Manny, Damon, Papelbon, Nava, etc. were all traded or allowed to leave. Exceptions: Pedroia, Papi, Wakefield, Varitek.)
--Do they think they can pretend to try to keep their stars, get outbid, and then throw up their hands? I think maybe they do because fans seem to fall for this quite often and turn on the player.
--Building off the above points, do they think they can create a Rays-like organization only with a higher payroll? Winning consistently while refusing to pay top dollar for top talent, turning over the team constantly?

I think the Bogaerts and Devers situations will help answer these questions. If they keep at least one of them long term, it will signal that they see the need to commit to some fan favorites. If they're both jettisoned, and they continue signing shrewd mid-market deals, I guess not.

Nava on that list!

I think the Bogaerts and Devers situations will help answer these questions. If they keep at least one of them long term, it will signal that they see the need to commit to some fan favorites. If they're both jettisoned, and they continue signing shrewd mid-market deals, I guess not.

I agree. But I think they also have noticed that some of those shrewd mid-market players become fan favorites (Damon, Napoli, Victorino). Of course, a pennant is generally needed for that...

We've probably beaten this line of thinking into the ground but passing on Bogaerts might make sense given his age/position! But unfortunately they so thoroughly ###### the Betts situation that I understand they probably feel a lot of pressure to do it.

Personally (and in this context only), I group Devers and Betts separately than Bogaerts. With Xander, they had him for 9 full years plus an extra playoff run before that. Devers has been on the team 5.5 years, which was the same length as Betts' stint. If they consistently keep their homegrown stars for "only" 9 years, I wouldn't complain. But #### 'em when they trade away a star in his prime a year before free agency.

Nava on that list!

What? He fits right in there, right? ;)

Personally (and in this context only), I group Devers and Betts separately than Bogaerts.

I would put them each in their own category. Betts was a generational talent, possible inner circle HOFer. Bogaerts has been consistently very good, and has built a borderline HOF career. Devers, as awesome and young as he is, has not really put it all together in the way that they guys have. He has health, defense, and conditioning concerns that the others don't (IMHO).


However, if I were to group any of them together, it would be Betts and Bogaerts. Very subjectively, they both were the face of the franchise who've led the team to championships. Both have exhibited amazing consistency, putting up multiple dominant seasons. Devers's 2019 was great, but he hasn't reached those heights since (that may be splitting hairs a bit, but I really don't think 2021 or 2022 are on the same level).

Nava on that list!

What? He fits right in there, right? ;)

He is certainly high on the list of switch-hitting Sox corner outfielders of my lifetime!

Edit: I agree with your #8. The only context for my grouping was in (potential) departure of very good homegrown players.

We've probably beaten this line of thinking into the ground but passing on Bogaerts might make sense given his age/position! But unfortunately they so thoroughly ###### the Betts situation that I understand they probably feel a lot of pressure to do it.

I guess it depends on what he's offered elsewhere, but age 30 is not that old for a FA. He's in good shape, has a stellar health record, and is projected by Steamer to put up 4.5 WAR next year. Compare that with Marcus Semien, who was a year older with a similar projection and got 7/175. The estimates for Bogaerts out there have him getting anywhere from 6/168 up to 8/225. If he gets about $200 mil or less, that seems like a good investment to me, all things considered.

All Switch Hitting Red Sox team since 1961;

1B Jose Offerman
2B Mark Bellhorn
3B Bill Mueller
SS Jed Lowrie
LF Daniel Nava
CF Reggie Smith
RF Shane Victorino
C Jason Varitek
DH Carl Everett
P Tomo Ohka

I'd be tempted to put Greg Harris there as he was a switch pitcher in addition to a switch hitter. Harris never batted while a Sox player, but all 3 of Ohka's plate appearances were from the same side as far as I can tell.

RF Shane Victorino

Well, at least for the first few months of his Red Sox tenure. Then he switched to the right side exclusively, which, if nothing else, helped him lead the league in HBPs (and pick up seven more in the postseason) in 2013.

Does anyone else remember when Duquette acquired Offerman, he said something like, 'he replaces Vaughn's on-base-percentage so we just need to replace his other skills in other places." For which is was mercilessly mocked by the press, fans, etc.

In the movie Moneyball, Beane says almost the exact same thing about how they can replace Giambi. Must have given DD a chuckle.

BBRef says Ohka is a switch hitter so I dunno. Victorino incidentally did not show up on my list as a switch hitter but #### it, he was key to a world series and belonged there dagnabbit!

Yes Darren I remember that very well about the Duke.

Yes Ohka was a switch-hitter but he didn't get a chance to dazzle us with those skills while in a Sox uniform because all his at-bats were against the same pitcher.

For what it's worth, when Bart Simpson imitated Ohka he batted left-handed: https://twitter.com/aria1exander/status/699354513367371778?lang=en

Oh, I've wasted my life.

I agree with most of 2 and 3 above. The Henry Group ain't perfect but they are pretty damned good. They haven't been cheap (always top 5 or so in payroll) but they have made dumb decisions (Sale extension, Sandoval) and of course, FOUR ############# WORLD SERIES TITLES BABY. I think given their performance since 2018 and the negative PR they've gotten they need to sign X. I think it's a massive miss if they don't, even if they sign say Correa to replace him. In baseball terms it probably would be the right move but the fanbase wants X and will feel cheated otherwise.

Duquette trades Ohka and then 6 months later the Henry Group fires him - coincidence or not!?

Devers's 2019 was great, but he hasn't reached those heights since (that may be splitting hairs a bit, but I really don't think 2021 or 2022 are on the same level).

The 1st half of 2022 certainly was-until he got injured, came back but was never the same. I'm convinced he has at least one monster season to come.

2B Mark Bellhorn

Did someone mention Mark Bellhorn? Have I mentioned lately that he clearly should have been the World Series MVP in 2004 and Manny was an awful choice? BELLHORN DIRECTLY WON THE GAME 1 THAT MANNY ALMOST BLEW WITH HIS 'DEFENSE'

they have made dumb decisions (Sale extension, Sandoval)

Obviously this deal is a shitty one (for the Sox) but I really don't think you can say it was a bad decision at the time. Yes, he was hurt a bit in '18 and '19 (27 starts/158 IP & 25 starts/147.1 IP), but those two years were preceded by 3 years over 200 IP (including leading MLB in '17), and unless he had an injury really early on in his development never had a history of arm issues. $29/per for 5 years of one of the best pitchers in the game is entirely reasonable - especially considering they traded so much for him. Sandoval was a ####### disaster from the start. Just a stupid, shitty deal. Eovaldi is the pitcher that pisses me off - he had about a 90% chance of missing time, and if they signed him they knew they'd be in a major crunch with Betts.

(Prior to that: Nomar, Pedro, Manny, Damon, Papelbon, Nava, etc. were all traded or allowed to leave. Exceptions: Pedroia, Papi, Wakefield, Varitek.)

And as much as I loved watching some of them, Nomar, Pedro, Manny, Papelbon, Nava, (& I'd add Holt! to the list) were all the correct calls. It's the Patriot's method, and it works - trade them a year too early rather than a year too late.

I think in one sense, letting Pedro go was the wrong call. They spent that money instead on Matt Clement, Edgar Renteria, and David ####### Wells. The 2005 title defense would have been much more fun with the last year of Pedro's excellence instead of those guys, even if that means some starts and the SS position taken by scrap-heap guys. Hey, maybe a not-ready-yet Hanley at SS!

In the other sense, yes they were correct about how many good years he had left. And in this timeline we got a 2007 World Series, so I wouldn't be quick to trade it away.

21 - Just for what it's worth here's what I wrote on 11/16/18 about the coming rush of free agents, particularly Sale. There's a lot of dumb stuff in here but at least on Sale I think I was right (emphasis added);

In all likelihood the most important thing Dombrowski can do this winter is prioritize and lay the groundwork for the future deals on the big stars on this team. Looking at the players able to be free agents or opt out either after 2019 or 2020 I would prioritize them in the following order;

Mookie Betts (after 2020)
J.D. Martinez (after 2019 - opt out)
Xander Bogaerts (after 2019)
Rick Porcello (after 2019)
Chris Sale (after 2019)
Jackie Bradley Jr. (after 2020)

Mookie is a gimme. If I’m running the Sox we are basically looking at a blank check situation here. There is absolutely no reason for a team like the Red Sox to let a superstar like Mookie get away when his club control expires and I do not expect it to happen. The big question for me is J.D. or Xander. I am probably foolish but I feel like J.D. is a guy who can follow the Ortiz path (not that good of course) while Xander, who I love, may have just had the best season he will ever have.

Porcello over Sale may seem like nonsense but hear me out. I assume Sale is going to get a massive deal, by contrast if Porcello’s deal is a bit more modest his ability to throw 200 innings may make him the better buy. Sale is amazing of course but how much money are the Sox willing to invest in a guy who frankly is unreliable. Of course with that unreliability comes brilliance but I suspect he is a guy who is going to get a massive amount of money from someone and I suspect that someone is going to regret it. Bradley is a good player and fun to root for but will be entering his age 32 season after 2020 and probably is likely to be on the downside.

#24 -

To be totally fair, you were wrong about Martinez, Porcello, and Xander so let's call that bit of prognostication a push at best!

Yeah but other than the stuff I got wrong I was right!

And as much as I loved watching some of them, Nomar, Pedro, Manny, Papelbon, Nava, (& I'd add Holt! to the list) were all the correct calls. It's the Patriot's method, and it works - trade them a year too early rather than a year too late.

Right, some of the were good financial decisions, some weren't. But the point is that they were willing to let these guys go even though they were fan favorites.

Porcello over Sale may have actually worked out better. Porcello had a lousy 2017 and a decent 2018, what kind of contract would that have led to? Maybe something like replacing his 1/21 remaining with a 4/68 deal like Eovaldi's? It looks like that would have netted the Sox about zero WAR for an additional outlay of $47 million. So far, 3 years into their Sales 5/145 deal, they've gotten 1 WAR. Porcello looks better so far.