Seven questions to get you through the latest Red Sox losing streak.

Hopefully at some point, we’ll be able to move on from endless discussion of the Rafael Devers trade. I’d love to! But not yet.

1. What, exactly, is the culture the Sox are trying to build without Devers?

An interesting claim made by chief baseball officer Craig Breslow and team president Sam Kennedy in last week’s post-trade videoconference was that the Devers did not fit the “culture” the Red Sox are trying to establish.

“We would not have made this trade if we didn’t think it was best for the organization, and the vision and the beliefs and the culture that we’re trying to create,” Breslow said. “I think culture is always important, but I think it’s magnified when you have young players who are coming to the big leagues… we’re very deliberate about the environment that we’re creating to support these guys and making sure that the messaging is the right type of messaging so that three, four, five years from now when there’s another wave of really exciting young talent that’s infusing our Major League team, they have set the standard and it will be easy to pass on.”

Devers’ behavior could set a poor example, but we’re not talking about toddlers. Roman Anthony, Marcelo Mayer, and Kristian Campbell may be too young to rent a car, but they are grown men. None have acted in a way that suggests they’re anything less than professional. Anthony, the youngest of the trio having just celebrated his 21st birthday, is often described by teammates as mature beyond his years.

More irksome is the vein of hypocrisy running through this ‘standard setting’ messaging from Sox leadership.

Under Breslow, the Sox have seemingly abandoned their longstanding unofficial mandate against signing players who’ve been suspended by Major League Baseball for violating the domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse policy.

It used to be something upon which the Red Sox could hang their proverbial baseball cap. In 2018, when the bullpen needed reinforcements as Boston was vying to make a deep playoff run, Dave Dombrowski made it clear that the Red Sox wouldn’t go near reliever Roberto Osuna, whom the Blue Jays were offering up to desperate teams while he was serving a 75-game suspension for domestic assault.

The Red Sox were the first team to ever suspend a player for such reasons, nearly 20 years before MLB and the players association enacted the joint policy in 2015. Only the Mariners ever meted out any such punishment in the intervening years.

It was especially impressive that the Red Sox once took such a firm stance on these so-called ‘off-the-field’ issues when ‘on-field’ wrongdoings have long been treated as substantially worse.

There’s no greater example than the postseason rule. Players suspended for performance-enhancing substances are barred from participating in that year’s postseason. Players suspended for violating the league’s policy may return and play on baseball’s grandest stage, as new Red Sox closer Aroldis Chapman did; mere months after serving his suspension, he won a ring with the Cubs.

In other words, in MLB’s eyes, doping deserves a harsher punishment than harming human beings.

In this new Red Sox regime, it’s Devers who doesn’t fit the culture.

2. What does it say about the Sox culture that three homegrown stars reversed course when they landed with new teams?

Mookie Betts was determined to go to free agency when he was still under Red Sox team control. Less than six months after his trade to the Dodgers, he signed a 12-year extension.

Xander Bogaerts didn’t want to move to second base in Boston, but was willing to do so in San Diego.

Now Devers. Less than two days after the Red Sox shipped him off, supposedly for his refusal to learn first base midseason, he was working out at first base in San Francisco.

It’s not uncommon for players to want to make a good impression when they join a new team, but this pattern also speaks to how the Red Sox have repeatedly disrespected and poorly handled their best homegrown stars.

3. How bad are the Red Sox without Devers?

The trade, hours after completing a Fenway sweep of the Yankees to extend their winning streak to a season-high five games. They won their first game without him, too, and their firing-on-all-cylinders performance and energy in that Mariners series opener seemed like a message: ‘Don’t worry, we can do this without that guy!’

They got shut out the following night, but bounced back to win two in a row between the Seattle finale and San Francisco opener.

Then they lost five in a row. Since the trade, they rank dead-last in OPS and strikeout percentage. With him, they averaged 4.8 runs per game. Without him, they’re averaging 3.1 runs per game.

4. When is something going to change for the better? (And what will it be?)

The Red Sox enter this homestand 40-42.

And, for all of manager Alex Cora’s reiteration that they just need to be better, the harsh truth is that they haven’t really gotten better in years.

5. Will anyone get fired?

There are many reasons why the Red Sox aren’t the team they should be, including years of low payroll, a farm system that hasn’t always churned out top talent, and now the jettisoning of their best hitter.

But at a certain point you have to ask about the coaching staff. Several of the issues with the ‘25 Sox are issues that have plagued this club for several years running. The endless errors and too-frequent strikeouts, for example.

6. Should the Sox buy or sell at the trade deadline?

Last week, I would have said buy. This week, I’m not so sure.

Such is the duality of this team. Sometimes they play like a complete team, then they revert right back to the worst version of themselves. The proverbial pendulum has swung from good to bad and back again at an alarmingly frequent pace.

The most consistent thing about the 2025 Red Sox is inconsistency. And teams that repeatedly follow a step forward with at least one step back are not built for a deep playoff run. In fact, they’re unlikely to get in at all.

7. Has sports gambling poisoned the relationship between athletes and fans?

Earlier this week, Diamondbacks infielder Ketel Marte was brought to tears during a game against the White Sox, because a so-called fan began shouting cruel taunts about Marte’s mother, who was killed in a car accident in 2017.

The perpetrator has been banned indefinitely from all major league venues, but the incident has sparked a massive debate about how athletes are treated by the public, particularly since 2018, when the Supreme Court lifted a 1992 federal law prohibiting single-game wagering. As of 2024, sports betting was legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

The rise of social media and the ability to cloak one’s self in digital anonymity was already emboldening people to be crueler. Now that fans have a literal stake in the game, it’s on another level.

On Wednesday, Red Sox reliever Garrett Whitlock’s wife, Jordan, voiced her support for Marte on her Instagram Stories.

“This. Is. Not. Okay. Athletes are people too. Not pieces you bet on and earn the right to taunt and degrade,” she wrote above a Sports Illustrated photo of Marte being comforted by his teammates. “Some of the most resilient men I know are pro athletes. Imagine that’s your friend, spouse, son.”

Then, she added a slide with direct messages she and her family received this week:

“I hope you get drilled in your mouth with a 100mph line drive.”

“You rat scumbag creep.”

“I wish I could torture you to death you (homophobic slur).”

“Hang yourself you worthless (expletive).”

And notably, a betting-related message: “My under become over i hope ur son die”