As a political scientist who writes a baseball Substack, I'm just here to support political scientists writing about baseball on Substack. And yeah, I broadly agree with you, though I'm high on Vaughn Grissom. That's the right kind of trade for a team in the Sox's position to make.
Lifelong Red Sox fan here. I used to be on pins and needles in the off season to see what the Sox were going to do, which big pitcher or bat they were going to add. Now, we sit back and wait and wait some more while, as you said, being lied to. If I had a chance to speak to Tom Werner I would tell him that I don’t give a crap about the “Fenway experience”. That I would gladly watch a winning baseball in an anodyne stadium. That I used to watch every Sox game on NESN and in fact kept an over priced cable package because it was the only way to continue to watch my beloved Sox. And now, well I didn’t watch one inning of the Sox last year. I’ve graduated from frustration to not caring. And I am quite sure there are many more fans who feel the same way that I do
As an Australian I am unfamiliar with the travails of the Red Sox. But learning of Doctorow's 4 stage model of enshittification has left me a better informed and wiser man.
My hope is that the Sox public hard budget stance is just a negotiating tactic to bring the price of Montgomery down.
Also, Fenway will almost always sellout, but NESN revenue could take a hit with another lackluster season. Montgomery, on a short and/or reasonable cost contract, puts the Sox in the hunt this year (if everything goes well) and it doesn't reduce their ability to sign young studs like Casas to long-term deals.
Yeah, if the Sox actually sign Montgomery, it ameliorates some of the criticisms in this post. And they might do so! But It sure sounds as though FSG has constrained Breslow's negotiating flexibility.
They say they want to model the Braves, who have signed all of their young stars to long term and team friendly contracts. Well, put your money where your spoken intentions are John Henry
The sad thing is the Sox can spend very nearly as much money as the Dodgers do but just won’t. And they pedaled the lie that they had to trade Mookie because he wouldn’t sign a long term extension with the Sox, even after Mookie forcefully refuted that claim
One other thought. Breslow said they could still add in Spring Training. Well there is an obvious guy-Jordan Montgomery-they could add, and given the fact that Boras has overplayed his hand not only with Montgomery but also with the other 3 of the Boras 4, they could likely get him in a short term deal, say 1 year at the going rate for a premium lefty with a 2nd year option. The rotation is all right handed and it’s a house of cards. Montgomery would add balance and instant credibility. But It won’t happen because Henry is more concerned about the Penguins, and the big investment he is making in the PGA tour.
(This is relative. Empty seats were seen but the Cardinals essentially sold 3 million tickets for breathing. They are in no danger of an Oakland type situation.)
A very interesting read, and one which seems to have interesting implications for Henry's other venture, Liverpool F.C., at a moment when that club is about to undergo its most significant transition in nearly a decade.
By most measures, FSG's running of LFC has been pretty good: winning and challenging for major honours almost every year since 2015, the year when now-departing manager Jurgen Klopp arrived. Arguably the only reason they haven't won more is because of the huge state-backed wealth poured into Manchester City, who may yet have their league titles stripped from them as a result of ongoing investigation into their financial situation.
With Klopp in charge, the club have pretty much nailed their squad development, bringing in the right big names at the right time (e.g. Alisson, Salah, van Dijk) and pruning the right big money contracts (e.g. keeping Salah over Mane).
Now that he's leaving, will FSG's management of Liverpool match the described handling of the Red Sox (the latter situation seems very similar to the Buccaneers owners nearly 20-year reign over Man United)? Anfield and Fenway both share the same characteristic of being grounds where die-hard local support + "tourists" will guarantee sell-out capacity at almost every game.
Maybe the difference in the competitive structure of the two sports -- no draft picks, drop off in revenue, no lucrative European competition the following season -- would prevent the same drift in ambition from arising, although the Glazers' running of Man U again suggests otherwise. But then again, the wrath of angry Scousers might be enough to focus attention in a way that angry Bostonians and Mancunians might not.
The New York Mets have a gazillionaire owner who vowed he'd spend whatever it takes to bring a pennant home. (like John Henry at Boston) Only it didn't work. The 2023 Mets were losers, ended up just short of the cellar. Now they claim to be in rebuilding mode, after firing the manager, and trading away Verlander and Scherzer. The only attraction left for the fans to cheer is home run champ Pete Alonzo, and it is uncertain if they will hang onto him. Yet the Mets have promised fans the team will be in contention in 2024... Your thoughts please Professor Drezner.
As a political scientist who writes a baseball Substack, I'm just here to support political scientists writing about baseball on Substack. And yeah, I broadly agree with you, though I'm high on Vaughn Grissom. That's the right kind of trade for a team in the Sox's position to make.
Lifelong Red Sox fan here. I used to be on pins and needles in the off season to see what the Sox were going to do, which big pitcher or bat they were going to add. Now, we sit back and wait and wait some more while, as you said, being lied to. If I had a chance to speak to Tom Werner I would tell him that I don’t give a crap about the “Fenway experience”. That I would gladly watch a winning baseball in an anodyne stadium. That I used to watch every Sox game on NESN and in fact kept an over priced cable package because it was the only way to continue to watch my beloved Sox. And now, well I didn’t watch one inning of the Sox last year. I’ve graduated from frustration to not caring. And I am quite sure there are many more fans who feel the same way that I do
And the most frustrating thing is that Fenway IS there. you don't need the false choice between great team-great stadium.
As an Australian I am unfamiliar with the travails of the Red Sox. But learning of Doctorow's 4 stage model of enshittification has left me a better informed and wiser man.
Am I the only one who thinks "enshittification" is not actually all that clever a coinage?
I love it!
Perfectly fine -- it's purely a matter of taste. I think you're in the majority. I was just wondering if I was in a minority of one.
My hope is that the Sox public hard budget stance is just a negotiating tactic to bring the price of Montgomery down.
Also, Fenway will almost always sellout, but NESN revenue could take a hit with another lackluster season. Montgomery, on a short and/or reasonable cost contract, puts the Sox in the hunt this year (if everything goes well) and it doesn't reduce their ability to sign young studs like Casas to long-term deals.
Yeah, if the Sox actually sign Montgomery, it ameliorates some of the criticisms in this post. And they might do so! But It sure sounds as though FSG has constrained Breslow's negotiating flexibility.
Your post was spot-on and I learned a new (and entirely appropriate) word. I'm probably just looking at the world with my carmine-colored glasses on.
They say they want to model the Braves, who have signed all of their young stars to long term and team friendly contracts. Well, put your money where your spoken intentions are John Henry
Most folks I know thought the Mookie Betts trade was good (though I live in LA).
You bastard.
The sad thing is the Sox can spend very nearly as much money as the Dodgers do but just won’t. And they pedaled the lie that they had to trade Mookie because he wouldn’t sign a long term extension with the Sox, even after Mookie forcefully refuted that claim
One other thought. Breslow said they could still add in Spring Training. Well there is an obvious guy-Jordan Montgomery-they could add, and given the fact that Boras has overplayed his hand not only with Montgomery but also with the other 3 of the Boras 4, they could likely get him in a short term deal, say 1 year at the going rate for a premium lefty with a 2nd year option. The rotation is all right handed and it’s a house of cards. Montgomery would add balance and instant credibility. But It won’t happen because Henry is more concerned about the Penguins, and the big investment he is making in the PGA tour.
As a Liverpool supporter, this was a great (and depressing) read.
G-d willing, this will never happen to the Cardinals since the fans showed last year that they will actually not show up to the ballpark.
In another miraculous event, fans actually booed!
(This is relative. Empty seats were seen but the Cardinals essentially sold 3 million tickets for breathing. They are in no danger of an Oakland type situation.)
A very interesting read, and one which seems to have interesting implications for Henry's other venture, Liverpool F.C., at a moment when that club is about to undergo its most significant transition in nearly a decade.
By most measures, FSG's running of LFC has been pretty good: winning and challenging for major honours almost every year since 2015, the year when now-departing manager Jurgen Klopp arrived. Arguably the only reason they haven't won more is because of the huge state-backed wealth poured into Manchester City, who may yet have their league titles stripped from them as a result of ongoing investigation into their financial situation.
With Klopp in charge, the club have pretty much nailed their squad development, bringing in the right big names at the right time (e.g. Alisson, Salah, van Dijk) and pruning the right big money contracts (e.g. keeping Salah over Mane).
Now that he's leaving, will FSG's management of Liverpool match the described handling of the Red Sox (the latter situation seems very similar to the Buccaneers owners nearly 20-year reign over Man United)? Anfield and Fenway both share the same characteristic of being grounds where die-hard local support + "tourists" will guarantee sell-out capacity at almost every game.
Maybe the difference in the competitive structure of the two sports -- no draft picks, drop off in revenue, no lucrative European competition the following season -- would prevent the same drift in ambition from arising, although the Glazers' running of Man U again suggests otherwise. But then again, the wrath of angry Scousers might be enough to focus attention in a way that angry Bostonians and Mancunians might not.
The New York Mets have a gazillionaire owner who vowed he'd spend whatever it takes to bring a pennant home. (like John Henry at Boston) Only it didn't work. The 2023 Mets were losers, ended up just short of the cellar. Now they claim to be in rebuilding mode, after firing the manager, and trading away Verlander and Scherzer. The only attraction left for the fans to cheer is home run champ Pete Alonzo, and it is uncertain if they will hang onto him. Yet the Mets have promised fans the team will be in contention in 2024... Your thoughts please Professor Drezner.