PDA

View Full Version : Small Market



Phil in BG
05-11-2004, 03:44 PM
I heard a little blip on WLW this morning where Dan O'Brien was discussing the release of Jimmy Haynes and referred to the Reds as a small market team. He said that since the Reds are a small market team you always have to consider the financial aspect when considering a release of this nature.

This brings up a few questions.
What makes a small market? Is it just the metropolitan population of a given team? Is it the cable tv/radio contracts and their viewing draw? The revenue?
Are the Reds in a small market?
Is it possible to go from a small market team to a medium market? Didn't Cleveland do that a few years ago? What about St. Louis or Colorado?

Dan's comment bothered me. Maybe I just don't like the terminology, but I thought it sounded like an excuse.

Chip R
05-11-2004, 03:49 PM
It's the revenue - which is tied into media contracts and attendance. It's entirely possible to go from a small to a medium/large market. Cleveland is a good example as is Atlanta and Seattle.

Aronchis
05-11-2004, 03:51 PM
and it is just as easy to fall right back into the "small" market after a few years of high living.

bucksfan
05-11-2004, 03:53 PM
It hit me the same way, Phil. Just the phrasing, whether reality or not, made it sound lame to me. I mean, (unless you are the Yankees or Red Sox apparently) ANY business needs to consider the financial impacts of their moves. Bringing the dreaded term "small market" into the picture sounds like we are in a situation hardly anyone else is, which as far as I can tell, is not true. Not that anything he said is necessarily wrong, just the perception it reinforces...

KronoRed
05-11-2004, 03:54 PM
and it is just as easy to fall right back into the "small" market after a few years of high living.

We did not get the few years of high living :(

westofyou
05-11-2004, 04:14 PM
The Reds have always been 'small market' They were small market when they gave their managing job to a guy who was an ex pitcher whose claim to fame was he umped the Merkle Boner game. They were small market when they traded their manager mid season for another manager and they were small market when McGraw was buying championships for the Giants year in and year out and Henie Grohl or Eddie Roush were holding out for an extras couple of thousand bucks, sometimes until June.

They were small market when they only drew 425 K in the 33-34 season combined, they were small market when they came in 7th or 8th in attendance in an 8 team league every year between 1945-1955.

They were small market in their approach when Free Agency became a reality, and they were small market in the day and age of cable television and missed establishing a superstation when the iron was hot.

Cincinnati is a conservative city, the Reds have been a mirror of this for most of their existence. To me it's a historical reality that is ingrained in the culture of the club and the approach it has to ideas as well as it's approach to it's fanbase.

The Reds historically have only experienced change when they go outside of the current regime and try something different, it happened with the arrival of Mathewson in 1916 and was apparent in the Mid 30's with the arrival of McPhail, the 60's with Howsam and the 80's with a renewed Howsam.

Bowden failed to bring wholesale change and now once again the marketplace has shifted leaving everyone to wonder what is the proper course out of the abyss.

Knowing Cincinnati I say that the limiteds like DO and his deliberate style, probably fits in with their fiscal conservatism.

Aronchis
05-11-2004, 04:16 PM
That is because the revenue exploded with high revenue teams and the Reds didn't put good products on the field most of the time. The 2001-03 teams were downright horrible. The 2002 team was a poor mans 99 which would have been a money blackhole after "buying" upgrades like Rolen or trading Kearns for Colon wouldn't have pushed the Reds past the Cards that year. The Reds seemed talent challenged every year, only getting by on pure guts and lucky retreads. Everybody has become cynical and we are beginning another rebuilding plan. If you want to be even more dire about the Reds situation during 97-2003, we scimpped a little on Farm spending in my opinion, which would have made payrolls even lower if funded properly!!!!!

A payroll of 59.3 mill sounded good in 1997, but it didn't help as much in 2003. Reds baseball has been in a recession since the mid-90's, you could see it coming in 95 and it has never recovered. Heck, even Schott got sick of it and quit funding, pushing the team toward victory by 1996. Bad management has not given the Reds the cheap talent needed to compete on a yearly basis. The Ownership is conservative, scared if some moves come about that will cause money windfall and no payback(playoffs,WS) comes it will strangle the franchise.

You can say the Reds are a small market team by choice, but in the same, other teams(Baltimore) have had it roughly the same time period of struggle, but can still spend money on Big FA's.

The Reds then, are a Small Market team because
1)Their plan did not give the Reds a better product or increase revenue 2)They will NOT have the money of probably about 10-15 teams, a fact, the diehard Reds fan will have to accept.

princeton
05-11-2004, 04:27 PM
I don't like the way they seem to say it. They're saying small market, but I swear that they're saying small goals

bucksfan
05-11-2004, 04:29 PM
I don't like the way they seem to say it. They're saying small market, but I swear that they're saying small goals


well put

Yachtzee
05-11-2004, 04:58 PM
woy, I agree. The mentality of the team ownership and, to a degree, the city itself reflects a conservativism that abhors drastic changes. Unfortunately, today's marketplace dictates that smaller market teams be on the cutting edge with new ideas and techniques in order to get a jump on the other teams.

I think the Reds' way of doing business will change only when a drastic change in the ownership structure comes about. If and when that happens, we can only hope that the new owners bring with them a drive to succeed through innovation rather than a fatalistic resignation to mediocrity. I also hope ban the phrase "small market" from their vocabulary. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, small market is as small market does.

2001MUgrad
05-11-2004, 05:07 PM
Small Market = Small Minded.

IslandRed
05-11-2004, 05:24 PM
Well, there are really two issues here, one being your market and the other being your revenues. Market size has a significant impact on revenues, obviously, but it's not the only factor. Attendance, lease terms, corporate presence, regional popularity and TV/radio contracts all matter. (Local media deals are the primary cause of disparity in team revenues, though.)

By any measure, the Reds are in the bottom third of baseball cities in terms of market size. But that doesn't mean they have to stay small-revenue forever. Cleveland and Seattle are great examples of former sad-sack franchises that got it together and turned into revenue monsters (without benefit of a superstation, e.g. Atlanta). St. Louis is another good example of making the best of a middling market.

Now, there's an obvious correlation between those franchises turning into gold mines and extended periods of winning. So you'd think the lesson would be obvious -- spend money, turn the team into a winner, then sit back and watch the cash roll in. But the other obvious lesson of baseball history is that free spending gets you nowhere as often as not. Call it the Jacobs/Hicks Paradox.

Phil in BG
05-11-2004, 05:35 PM
Well said IslandRed....that's pretty much how I see it.

Chip R
05-11-2004, 05:47 PM
I made a post a few weeks ago about 2001 revenues for MLB. The numbers stated that the Reds finished a respectable 20th out of 30 teams in gate receipts. All things considered that wasn't too bad if you remember how lousy a season 2001 was. But if you look at the local revenues - which include TV, Cable and radio revenues - the Reds finished a paltry 26th behind such teams as Pittsburgh, Florida, San Diego and Tampa Bay. What that tells me is the Reds can compete revenue wise with a lot of teams but the TV deal is a real millstone. Attendance revenues can only be so high. If they sold out every game they would draw over 3M fans. If the average ticket price is $20 per ticket that is still just $60M which is competitive with most teams except for NY, Seattle and Boston. But the TV deal is something that has more potential.

TeamBoone
05-11-2004, 05:56 PM
The mentality of the team ownership and, to a degree, the city itself reflects a conservativism that abhors drastic changes. Unfortunately, today's marketplace dictates that smaller market teams be on the cutting edge with new ideas and techniques in order to get a jump on the other teams.

I think the Reds' way of doing business will change only when a drastic change in the ownership structure comes about. If and when that happens, we can only hope that the new owners bring with them a drive to succeed through innovation rather than a fatalistic resignation to mediocrity. I also hope ban the phrase "small market" from their vocabulary. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, small market is as small market does.

What exactly are other "small market" teams doing that are "cutting edge new ideas and techniques"? And just exactly what would an owner need to do to "succeed through innovation"?

Just curious, because I don't have a clue as to what you are suggesting.

traderumor
05-11-2004, 05:57 PM
Small Market = Small Minded.Why?

Yachtzee
05-11-2004, 07:00 PM
What exactly are other "small market" teams doing that are "cutting edge new ideas and techniques"? And just exactly what would an owner need to do to "succeed through innovation"?

Just curious, because I don't have a clue as to what you are suggesting.

Basically the idea is to follow the lead of teams like Oakland in thinking outside the box a bit in order to get ahead of the curve with new ideas in how to evaluate talent, assemble a roster and run a ballclub. I know it's not as simple as just saying "Do as Oakland does", especially since just about everyone and their brother has read "Moneyball" and many teams have already begun to adopt similar strategies.

Since the Reds will never be able to outbid the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers etc. for quality free agents without significant change in the revenue structure, they will have to succeed through other means, particularly in the evaluation and development of talent. You evaluate the talent and look for guys who are undervalued by the market and snap them up. Once you've signed them, you have to the development staff in place to make sure you get the most out of each player. That's how you get a leg up on the other guy.

It extends beyond just assembling the team on the field. I don't think the Reds have come up with any new ideas to market the team in ages. I feel there are revenue streams that haven't been utilized to their fullest. The Reds need to work on maxing out revenue streams while expanding the market to its geographic limits. I'm not sure what they can do to achieve those goals, but I think it starts with ending the long standing habit of the FO of blaming their inability to compete on the market. Somehow I get the feeling that everytime John Allen or Carl Lindner or the GM, whether Bowden or O'Brien, mentions the words "small market", the Reds lose more fans than they gain.

Chip R
05-11-2004, 07:13 PM
Basically the idea is to follow the lead of teams like Oakland in thinking outside the box a bit in order to get ahead of the curve with new ideas in how to evaluate talent, assemble a roster and run a ballclub.That's great when it comes to running a ballclub. But that's no guarantee that will raise revenues.



It extends beyond just assembling the team on the field. I don't think the Reds have come up with any new ideas to market the team in ages. I feel there are revenue streams that haven't been utilized to their fullest. The Reds need to work on maxing out revenue streams while expanding the market to its geographic limits. I'm not sure what they can do to achieve those goals, but I think it starts with ending the long standing habit of the FO of blaming their inability to compete on the market.I agree. But the $64,000 question is what do other teams do to maximize revenues? We can criticize the Reds all we want for being small minded but other than building new ballparks are other teams of our ilk doing a lot to maximize their revenues?

Redmachine2003
05-11-2004, 07:46 PM
If uncle Carl decided to have a payroll of 100 million instead of 50 million just because he can afford it then the Reds would go from a small market to a large market. But this new CBA has something in it about how a team can't spend more than what brings in so even if Carl wanted too I don't think he is allowed to do that anymore. So Good old Bud created market sizes that can't be change quickly.

Matt700wlw
05-11-2004, 08:11 PM
Building a new staduim was supposed to change all that

Now they spend less money than they did....

We're small market because ownership won't let us be anything else...and they sure as hell won't let us forget it everytime they don't make a move or we don't win anything

Hell they finally make a good move and they still have the throw the "small market" twist in it to explain a move that I think everybody agrees should have been done to better the ballclub!

They need a PR overhaul and if they're so damn keen on the "small market" excuse, plan, or whatever it may be....they need to clue the fans in what exaclty they plan on doing to make this "small market" a success....

Phhhl
05-11-2004, 08:41 PM
The term has seeped into the culture of the game and has become an excuse for losers and losing. That is how it sounds to me, and as a lifelong Reds fan it makes me want to puke. He also used the word "creative", but if his idea of creativity is "creating" a roster spot for a total scrub like Jason Romano I have to question if he can even define that one. So far, we have no idea what a Dan O'Brien player even is, judging by his moves, except that he works cheap and about 1 out of every 50 may turn into a decent major league bench player or long reliever. I have very little faith in him.

RedFanAlways1966
05-11-2004, 08:48 PM
I made a post a few weeks ago about 2001 revenues for MLB. The numbers stated that the Reds finished a respectable 20th out of 30 teams in gate receipts. All things considered that wasn't too bad if you remember how lousy a season 2001 was. But if you look at the local revenues - which include TV, Cable and radio revenues - the Reds finished a paltry 26th behind such teams as Pittsburgh, Florida, San Diego and Tampa Bay. What that tells me is the Reds can compete revenue wise with a lot of teams but the TV deal is a real millstone. Attendance revenues can only be so high. If they sold out every game they would draw over 3M fans. If the average ticket price is $20 per ticket that is still just $60M which is competitive with most teams except for NY, Seattle and Boston. But the TV deal is something that has more potential.

BAM! Well said, Chip. I do not blame anyone or anything but the setup of MLB.

Bowden's Ghost
05-11-2004, 09:02 PM
small market = Carl Lindner's small desire to win

RFS62
05-11-2004, 09:13 PM
I made a post a few weeks ago about 2001 revenues for MLB. The numbers stated that the Reds finished a respectable 20th out of 30 teams in gate receipts. All things considered that wasn't too bad if you remember how lousy a season 2001 was. But if you look at the local revenues - which include TV, Cable and radio revenues - the Reds finished a paltry 26th behind such teams as Pittsburgh, Florida, San Diego and Tampa Bay. What that tells me is the Reds can compete revenue wise with a lot of teams but the TV deal is a real millstone. Attendance revenues can only be so high. If they sold out every game they would draw over 3M fans. If the average ticket price is $20 per ticket that is still just $60M which is competitive with most teams except for NY, Seattle and Boston. But the TV deal is something that has more potential.



Great post.

I really don't understand why the term small market rankles so many people. It seems like a lot of fans think it means we don't want to win, or we have an inferiority complex.

The current setup of MLB gives the major media markets a tremendous advantage. It is a fact. The deck is stacked before the game begins.

To ignore this basic premise of the business of baseball sets one up for all kinds of aggravation. Through no fault of our own, the Yankees media contract dwarfs our own.

Until and unless this is changed through revenue sharing of the local media dollars, we will always be at a competitive disadvantage.

We can be smarter and tougher and work harder, but until the broken system of MLB is fixed, we will be at a disadvantage.

There's no shame in that. It is what it is.

To ignore it is reality distortion.

Marc D
05-11-2004, 09:13 PM
Edited for my stupidity :help:

MWM
05-11-2004, 09:16 PM
Where did you get the $13.9MM figure?

An no, the Reds aren't making a huge profit. They probably made some money last year, but I'm quite certain it's not a "huge" profit.

Aronchis
05-11-2004, 09:17 PM
D, the Reds didn't turn a 13.9 mill profit.
D, the Reds weren't league leaders in attendence.

Marc D
05-11-2004, 09:33 PM
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0428/064tab2.html

something got messed up when I put it into excell, I stand corrected :al_cohol:

But we were 14th in atten

BUTLER REDSFAN
05-11-2004, 09:40 PM
Our stingy owner is a billionaire but we are a small market team??? Uncle Carl, please sell the team and on your way out take Dan and John with you.

westofyou
05-11-2004, 09:44 PM
Our stingy owner is a billionaire but we are a small market team???

The market is small and has nothing to do with Linder.

If Steinbrenner owned the Reds they'd still be small market.

GAC
05-11-2004, 09:55 PM
This just shows how the economics of baseball has changed so radically. It use to be that being a "small market" club didn't really mean anything as far as winning or being competitive.

But that is before money and greed became the deciding factor in every decision made. That was before free agency and the ascent of the power/influence of the player's union.

But I don't think the term "small market" should be used as an excuse or crutch. And that seems how this organization wants to use it. It is almost a "defeatist" attitude sometimes.

Being a designated a small market club may mean you can't go after the high-priced FA's; but it's no excuse for not being able to scout and develop your farm system.

And if we are going to use the small market excuse or approach, then why are we then signing players like a Jr (or whoever. Just using him as an example) if its going to greatly hinder your spending/investment in other areas?

When you think small, then you are small.

westofyou
05-11-2004, 10:03 PM
This just shows how the economics of baseball has changed so radically. It use to be that being a "small market" club didn't really mean anything as far as winning or being competitive.

The early Cubs and White sox and then Yankees and Giants and later the Dodgers are proof that that statment isn't a whole truth. Shoot, look at the little success of the small market Browns and the small market Senators over the years. The Phillies were 2nd tier in their own city thus making them "small market" and they stunk for most of their existence.

Big city towns having been buying it since Kelly went from the White Stockings to the Beaneaters for 10K. The only way you beat the big market is with innovation, thus Branch Rickey, thuse Bob Howsam, thus Sandy Alderson, thus Billy Beane.

Chip R
05-11-2004, 10:26 PM
I appreciate the kudos thrown my way about my rprevious post. But I guess I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. My point wasn't that the system is broken and that's the reason our TV contract is so bad. The Reds are always going to make less media money than the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox. Unless they go to an NFL style revenue sharing plan - which I oppose - that won't change. What I was trying to get across was that the Reds should be able to do so much better than 26th in local TV/Radio revenues. As I stated teams like PIT, San Diego, Tampa Bay and Florida all had greater TV/Radio revenues than we did in 2001 and my guess is that they are still ahead of us. Do those teams have a more passionate fanbase than the Reds? I doubt it. I know that FLA is the defending world champs but back in 2001 they were going nowhere in a hurry. TB has always been lousy. S.D. went to the Series in 98 but hasn't done much since and PIT hasn't been any good since Bonds, Van Slyke, Bonilla, Drabek and Leyland all left for greener pastures. But they all bring in more TV/Radio money than the Reds do.

I'm not going to pretend that I know how to correct this. Certainly bringing Jr. in didn't help matters any. Perhaps the Reds need someone with better negotiating skills to get more money from FSO. I just read an article about how the Twins started their own cable company called Victory Sports as a vehicle to carry Twins games. During the winter they would carry University of Minnesota hoops but it was basically for the Twins. They couldn't get enough cable systems to carry it though and they had to go back to Fox Sports Net. They did double what they were getting before but the Pohlads who own the Twins lost their shirts on the deal. http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/4766448.html
Perhaps Lindner & Co. could do something like that to get FSO to increase the money. But the drawback to that would be that the new company may go under and Lindner & Co. would lose a bunch of money.

BrooklynRedz
05-11-2004, 10:28 PM
Building a new staduim was supposed to change all that

Now they spend less money than they did....

We're small market because ownership won't let us be anything else...and they sure as hell won't let us forget it everytime they don't make a move or we don't win anything

Hell they finally make a good move and they still have the throw the "small market" twist in it to explain a move that I think everybody agrees should have been done to better the ballclub!

They need a PR overhaul and if they're so damn keen on the "small market" excuse, plan, or whatever it may be....they need to clue the fans in what exaclty they plan on doing to make this "small market" a success....

With all due respect, I believe a great deal of the Reds' marketing/PR troubles lies in the media's constant cynicism. If you've been to Seattle or St Louis or Chicago recently, you'll have noticed that the local media (newspapers, radio, tv) do what they can to sell the team and build the excitement of the club. But with Cincinnati, it couldn't be more opposite. Everything is so doom and gloom oriented that when they finally do make a move (a la Haynes, which the fans and media alike were begging to happen for weeks leading up to), the media instead catches hold of that one "buzz-phrase". I don't get it. Perhaps the FO would be better served to cater to the local media, I don't know. Maybe some new pens or mouse-pads or friendly manner. I really don't know.

It actually reminds me of the 2002-era Kentucky Basketball program when you had such a negative cloud hanging over the program with local media pounding on the program due to suspensions, transfers, etc that before long, the fans couldn't help but take note. And what happened? Attendance actually fell. Amazing enough, attendance for UK basketball fell. And this for a team that still won 20+ games and challenged nationally and within the conference.

Perhaps it's a leap of logic on my part (wouldn't be a first), but there seems to be such a cloud now hanging over the Reds. And despite the complaining from the fans, media, whomever, such a tenor rarely produces much but self-fulfilling prophecies of 90-loss seasons. I'm not asking for Polly-Annas to gather at the gates, but this team needs a champion among the public to sell all that is good about this team (of which there is MUCH to be appreciative of). We've got plenty of mouths working to the contrary...

Ron Madden
05-11-2004, 11:07 PM
Well said BrooklynRedz, GOOD JOB!!!

IslandRed
05-11-2004, 11:16 PM
Big city towns having been buying it since Kelly went from the White Stockings to the Beaneaters for 10K.

Not to mention the tremendous advantage they had before the mid-1960s, when there was no draft and the minors were less structured. The rich clubs could buy the best amateur talent and stock more farm clubs. Today, occasionally a low-revenue team will have to pass on a particular player due to signing bonus concerns, but outside the first round it's a level playing field.

Really, there was only about a ten-year period where teams had equal shots at the talent and the ability to keep it forever if they chose. (Or until 1976, whichever came first.) Luckily for Reds fans, we had some sharp cookies in the front office then and life was good.

It may be harder on the small-market clubs now in some respects, but one thing hasn't changed -- teams that make good baseball decisions will do well and teams that don't, won't.

RFS62
05-11-2004, 11:22 PM
Let's see now.... the deck has been stacked in favor of teams like the Yankees for over 100 years. And the Yankees have won the Series about 25% of that time.

Hmmmm.

So, because it's tradition for a competitive imbalance in MLB, it's OK?

Personally, I'd like to see us all start on a level playing field revenue wise, and let the smartest front office win. If you make bad decisions, so be it.

We're fighting the Yankees with one hand tied behind our backs, hopping on one foot. Yep, we land a haymaker every few years, but we get stomped in the meantime.

That's not a healthy business model.

BCubb2003
05-12-2004, 02:34 AM
Some people may have seen this before, but here's my theory on baseball markets. There are several sizes of markets, and you can overachieve or underachieve in any of them, for awhile.

Superstation market: Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cubs, Mets. The Cubs have underachieved in the recent past. The Mets have some 'splainin' to do.

Major metro market: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington if you put a team there, Toronto. Lots of underachievers there.

Sunbelt market: Florida, Tampa Bay, Texas, Houston, Arizona, San Diego. Florida and Arizona have overachieved (or overspent). Tampa Bay has underachieved. Texas has some 'splainin' to do.

Pacific Coast market: Seattle, Oakland, San Francisco, Anaheim and Los Angeles. Overachievers are Seattle and Oakland. Los Angeles has some 'splainin' to do.

Midwest Industrial market: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee. Cleveland overachieved for awhile. Detroit underachieved. Milwaukee has some 'splainin' to do.

Prairie market: Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City, White Sox, Colorado. St. Louis and Colorado have overachieved. The White Sox should do better than they do.

Random notes:
This groups the teams according to fan base and media power.
Media contracts are where the huge, exponential gaps have occurred in recent years.
The difference between 20,000 fans a night in Cincinnati and 40,000 fans a night in Yankee Stadium is real, but it's always been there. What's different is a $7 million media contract vs. a $200 million media contract.

Nielsen defines the markets instead of me, and that works against the Reds, who must cobble together pieces from the Indianapolis, Louisville, Lexington and West Virginia markets. A savvy Reds owner would work to make that happen, but it's harder work than selling the St. Louis or Houston markets. It's a tough sell to get advertisers on the western side of the Indianapolis market to think they're in the Reds market. The sprawl around St. Louis or Houston is contiguous. A dense population of TV sets. There are a lot of empty cornfields and hillsides in the Reds market.

Finally: Just because a rich team can be dumb, that doesn't mean a poor team is automatically smart.

oregonred
05-12-2004, 03:21 AM
Agree 100% that anyone in the front office using small market is self-defeating. Bottom line is the Reds are within striking distance of all other NL Central teams for Tv/Radio revenue (except the big market Cubs). The focus should be 100% on maximizing stadium revenue, increasing the TV contract and a good place to start is to not talk in a self-defeating manner to your fanbase. Follow the Cards model and make yourself a "mid-market" revenue team in a "small population market" No one wants to be reminded they are "small market", not even people living in Fargo or Billings. Let alone people in a tradition rich and nice area like Cincinnati.

Add Dayon to the Cinci area and you've got an immediate midsize market of 3 million. Not to mention the other areas of opportunity within 100 miles. And most of this fanbaase has been Reds fans since birth and not consisting of a large % of Sunbelt or immigrant transplants with no local loyalties like some of the new mid/big markets.

BCubb -- Don't forget the Rangers rolled off quite a few AL West titles in the late 90's.

Aronchis
05-12-2004, 03:23 AM
GAC, the reasons why the Reds signed Junior is basically this: Jim Bowden

My guess is that most of the Reds FO was against the Griffey deal. Bowden after the 99 season got the go ahead to do the deal as a attempt to "jump start" the dormant portions of the Reds market into raising overall revenue for the company. The problem was, the product couldn't match what it did in 99. Lets be clear, the 00 team was a one shot deal. Harnish was about washed up,Neagle was at the tale end of his career height, Parris and Villone were 'treads' and acted like it. So what happens in 2000, a bunch of fanfare, hype and dreams, but in the end:
1)Steve Parris,Ron Villone,Ed Taubensee and Pokey Reese can't match 1999
2)Harnich and Casey have bad injuries to begin the season and aren't fully healthy to July
3)Barry Larkin has injury plagued season
4)Rob Bell shows early signs of bustdom
5)Dante Bichette was still on the roster at the start of the season shortening the payroll that had doubled since 1998(24-48 mill, which it was in 1995).
6)Griffey had a horrible 2 months
Bowden couldn't afford to miss with the 2000 team. By 100 games it was apparent the team needed some major infusion to even give them a chance in September, not what was expected in April. So they gave up with the Neagle deal,which Bowden busted on. It was a bullet that missed the target and struck Reds fans in the heart. Jr is somebody that maybe doesn't deserve to take the full fall, but he is able target, in the view of the fan. But the deal that supposedly remade the team, destroyed them.

Phil in BG
05-12-2004, 06:45 AM
oregonred,
this is what I've been thinking. With the present set up in MLB, the Reds will never be able to compete in revenue with the Yankees. Still, they could go from small market to mid-market by solidifying their historic geographic market. I don't have the answers on how to do it, but I do believe it starts with winning. A Cleveland fan base sprung up out of nowhere in the early nineties. I think they are mostly fair-weather fans, but they sure spent money. There are many closet Reds fans throughout the area just waiting to jump on the bandwagon. I understand these fans aren't necessarily true fans, but they do spend money.

The bottom line still is for MLB to find a way to share at least media revenue.

Bowden's Ghost
05-12-2004, 08:45 AM
If Linder invested a bit more in the team (ie. better pitching), it'd be better and thus would draw more fans. This would equal more revenue to invest back into the club. In business you have to spend money to make money, and i'm surprised he doesnt apply this rule to his baseball team. He is a good businessman after all or else he wouldnt be a billionaire.

GAC
05-12-2004, 09:22 AM
The early Cubs and White sox and then Yankees and Giants and later the Dodgers are proof that that statment isn't a whole truth. Shoot, look at the little success of the small market Browns and the small market Senators over the years. The Phillies were 2nd tier in their own city thus making them "small market" and they stunk for most of their existence.

Big city towns having been buying it since Kelly went from the White Stockings to the Beaneaters for 10K. The only way you beat the big market is with innovation, thus Branch Rickey, thuse Bob Howsam, thus Sandy Alderson, thus Billy Beane.

I agree woy that the "big city towns have been buying it", and have always had an advantage over the smaller market teams; but my point is that there wasn't the huge disparity then as we have seen come into existence currently. The "gap" (or gulf) has grown even wider and wider.

And just because one is deemed a large market team, that does not equate into success (historically speaking) (i.e. the Cubs and Red Sox come to mind).

Acknowledging that one is a small market team does not mean that they are doomed to always be mediocre or not have success. And I didn't get to hear O'Brien's recent remarks; but from what a couple people have told me who did, they intepreted O'Brien to be saying, due to the small market label, to not expect much from the Reds. Now if O'Brien truly said this, then that disappoints me alot. Because that type of approach or mentality will get you nowhere then.

traderumor
05-12-2004, 09:25 AM
In business you have to spend money to make money, and i'm surprised he doesnt apply this rule to his baseball team.
Probably because it isn't a rule. There are lots of folks spending money that lose their shirts doing so. I'm not sure what business school is making that statement, but I sure do hear a lot people repeating it without apparently thinking it through.

GAC
05-12-2004, 09:25 AM
If Linder invested a bit more in the team (ie. better pitching), it'd be better and thus would draw more fans. This would equal more revenue to invest back into the club. In business you have to spend money to make money, and i'm surprised he doesnt apply this rule to his baseball team. He is a good businessman after all or else he wouldnt be a billionaire.

But if Linder opened up his own pockets (which a majority of owners are not doing, but instead are relying on revenue generated by the organization itself, along with lucrative cable/TV deals, etc.), and went out and spent 15 Mil and acquired a couple good rotation guys, then how/where would that revenue be generated to help him recoup/offset that?

Gate receipts? I doubt it.

zombie-a-go-go
05-12-2004, 09:41 AM
But if Linder opened up his own pockets (which a majority of owners are not doing, but instead are relying on revenue generated by the organization itself, along with lucrative cable/TV deals, etc.), and went out and spent 15 Mil and acquired a couple good rotation guys, then how/where would that revenue be generated to help him recoup/offset that?

Gate receipts? I doubt it.

You do it in a "contract year," i.e. the year that all of your media contracts are up for renegotiation. Ideally, you build the buzz with all kinds of positive publicity (including getting your media outlets to show some positivity and excitement about the team) and making some moves the moment that the previous season is over, then in your contract year you perform. Yeah, it's a heavy investment in one year (well, heavy for a "small-market"), but when it comes time to renegotiate your cable and radio deals, it'll pay off in spades.

I think.

REDREAD
05-12-2004, 01:51 PM
He said that since the Reds are a small market team you always have to consider the financial aspect when considering a release of this nature.


And just think, about a week ago, DanO said that Haynes' contract had nothing to do with the decision not to release him. DanO bends the truth just as much as Allen and Bowden, not all fans realize it yet.

princeton
05-12-2004, 01:54 PM
And just think, about a week ago, DanO said that Haynes' contract had nothing to do with the decision not to release him.

as they have now released him, it didn't

REDREAD
05-13-2004, 01:22 AM
as they have now released him, it didn't

But didn't he just say that the contract always plays a part since we are a "small market"... That's what bothers me.. Just like it bothered me last year when Allen was crying about the financial burden of having 3 guys on the DL simultaneously..

Releasing Haynes and replacing him with someone making negligible salary should have a financial impact so neglegible, you don't worry about it if it helps you win more games.. unless you are the Reds, that is.

If finances had nothing to do about it, they would've cut him before the season began.

Puffy
05-13-2004, 11:13 AM
You do it in a "contract year," i.e. the year that all of your media contracts are up for renegotiation. Ideally, you build the buzz with all kinds of positive publicity (including getting your media outlets to show some positivity and excitement about the team) and making some moves the moment that the previous season is over, then in your contract year you perform. Yeah, it's a heavy investment in one year (well, heavy for a "small-market"), but when it comes time to renegotiate your cable and radio deals, it'll pay off in spades.

I think.

I agree with this, but I don't think you can only do it in the contract year. I think you would have to do it for at least two years, maybe three. You would have to kick money in the year before the K year, the year of the K, and the year after the K. Sorry - K is abbr. for contract. So its actually a heavy investment for three years.

However, it would be worth it. The Reds are in a unique position, and anyone on this board knows it. If the Reds consistently put a winning team on the field attendence would slowly but steadily increase, media outlets would be bombarded with stories about the Reds, this board's membership would skyrocket, etc. In short, because Cincinnati is baseball crazy a consistent winner would force the communications K's, when they came up, to bow to the Reds superior position. Its demand really - the Reds fanbase, crazy from the consistently good product on the field, would translate into TV outlets competiting for them (and advertisers wanting to advertise with the Reds) and the media K would be greater.

Now, the Reds could do this, just like Cleveland did, because of the fanbase. A team like Oakland or Florida probably not - the fans just aren't the same. Surprisingly Minnesota hasn't been able to do this either, but that might be because of Pohlad (who is worse than even Lindner), it could be because mediocre pitching, mediocre hitting and excellent defense, while they win with it, isn't exciting to watch, I don't know - but in the late eighties that place rocked - but it was also a different economic climate.

But I believe the Reds could pull this off just because of the fans. Reds fans are loyal and they love baseball (like St. Louis fans) and good, fun teams that win will eventually put people in the stands, will cause message boards such as this to explode, force the DDN, Post and Enquirer to devote more space to the Reds, increase revenues at sports bars - it will make baseball the thing again. And this would allow for better media revenue and allow for higher payrolls.

But its gotta be for more than a year - people won't come back for only a year. Thats why the Reds blew it with the opening of the GAB. Bowden saw it, and thought Griffey would keep them competitively good through the GAB and this would have caused the boom I described above, but it didn't work when he couldn't get pitching (not to mention being forced to hire Boone).

That was a really long post to say so little - sorry!

princeton
05-13-2004, 01:38 PM
But didn't he just say that the contract always plays a part since we are a "small market"... That's what bothers me.. Just like it bothered me last year when Allen was crying about the financial burden of having 3 guys on the DL simultaneously..

Releasing Haynes and replacing him with someone making negligible salary should have a financial impact so neglegible, you don't worry about it if it helps you win more games.. unless you are the Reds, that is.

If finances had nothing to do about it, they would've cut him before the season began.

they replaced Jimmy not with a kid, but with a guy that probably makes quite a bit more than ML minimum because he was a better choice than stressing a kid. Once again, this is the very kind of decision that should make you happy. Instead, you continue to glum around. I don't get it. There are so many more finance-inspired moves to be dejected about, starting with Reitsma. Leave this one alone.

in fact, most teams would have moved Haynes to AAA just in case there was a rash of injuries or he suddenly showed a sign of life. That's the frugal move-- costs nothing. The Reds didn't do that. They cut bait. It's very uncharacteristic

the problem in the beginning was a lack of good options, not a lack of will. This wasn't a case where Haynes was kept even though he'd been outpitched-- out of a cast of suspects, Jimmy was not apparently worse than the next guy, and he had been better than those guys at a more recent time.

Look back to March-- In hindsight, who should you have used instead of Haynes? From the getgo, I had Haynes in AAA, Myers in the pen and TVP starting, but I'm not crowing because those guys still bite, they just might bite less hard. But they might not. Myers had a bad camp-- couldn't even outdistinguish Phil Norton. TVP is arguably less distinguished than Jimmy-- both have had one decent year, and Jimmy's was more recent. Sanchez seemed a choice, but he hasn't even been that good in Louisville. Really, the best possibility may turn out to have been Seth Etherton. Seth Etherton.

Or you could have started a kid from the beginning of the year. But nobody's ready. Me, I'm happy that the Reds didn't overpromote a kid, either now or at the end of spring. Bowden might have brought up a guy and cited a Blyleven curve, a Hoffman change

on that, Kudos to the FO. On most other things, bleah.

westofyou
05-13-2004, 01:42 PM
Instead, you continue to glum around. I don't get it.

Nor I.

REDREAD
05-14-2004, 01:06 PM
in fact, most teams would have moved Haynes to AAA just in case there was a rash of injuries or he suddenly showed a sign of life. That's the frugal move-- costs nothing. The Reds didn't do that. They cut bait. It's very uncharacteristic.

I doubt think they have this option.. Haynes could've refused the assignment and still got paid. I am pretty sure he has enough service time to stop the Reds from sending him to AAA against his will..



the problem in the beginning was a lack of good options
.

I agree that the options to replace Haynes are not very good. But that is
O'Brien's fault. It's his job to get cheap depth in the offseason, and he failed miserably.




Look back to March-- In hindsight, who should you have used instead of Haynes? .

Just about anyone. I said all winter that the Reds needed to sign a minimum of 2 veteran retread starting pitchers to make it through the year. They got one in Lidle. Based on Haynes' perfromance last year, and his back injury,
it was obvious he was going to be horrible. He should not have been handed
a rotation spot, which is exactly what the Reds did.
Now I liked the Vanderwall signing, but if 700k was all that was left in the kitty, DanO should've tried to sign the best retread he could for 700k.. He probably wouldn't have gotten very good quality, but beating Haynes is a low bar to beat.

Now my main point was that a few weeks ago, DanO said that Haynes' salary had nothing to do with why Haynes was still on the roster. Yet when Haynes was released, he said Haynes salary did impact the roster, because the Reds are "small market".. Just pointing out the contradiction, even if no one else wants to acknowledge it. And for the record, I am happy Haynes was cut.





From the getgo, I had Haynes in AAA, Myers in the pen and TVP starting, but I'm not crowing because those guys still bite, they just might bite less hard. But they might not. Myers had a bad camp-- couldn't even outdistinguish Phil Norton. TVP is arguably less distinguished than Jimmy-- both have had one decent year, and Jimmy's was more recent. Sanchez seemed a choice, but he hasn't even been that good in Louisville. Really, the best possibility may turn out to have been Seth Etherton. Seth Etherton.

Or you could have started a kid from the beginning of the year. But nobody's ready. Me, I'm happy that the Reds didn't overpromote a kid, either now or at the end of spring. Bowden might have brought up a guy and cited a Blyleven curve, a Hoffman change

on that, Kudos to the FO. On most other things, bleah.[/QUOTE]

princeton
05-14-2004, 01:19 PM
I doubt think they have this option.. Haynes could've refused the assignment and still got paid. I am pretty sure he has enough service time to stop the Reds from sending him to AAA against his will

I don't think that such a rule exists. He can refuse an assignment, but loses his contract

who'd you like for $700K? To go with Lidle, the Reds signed retreads Myers, Etherton, TVP, Sanchez, and Myette. Looks like you could have also had Elarton, who signed for $480K with the hometown team and probably needed more to sign elsewhere.

you can get Elarton cheaper now. Is that what you'd like to do?

Chip R
05-14-2004, 01:21 PM
I doubt think they have this option.. Haynes could've refused the assignment and still got paid. I am pretty sure he has enough service time to stop the Reds from sending him to AAA against his will..
He could have refused the assingment but if he wants to pitch on the major league level again he could have gone down to LOU and showed other teams that he had something left in the tank. He looks halfway decent down there perhaps someone comes a callin'. He's not impressing anyone just sitting at home. Even Jimmy Anderson went down to AAA cause he thought someone might pick him up.

It was a good PR move just to cut him loose. If he had accepted an assignment to AAA the fans' glee in seeing him off the roster would have been tempered with the possibility he may return.

Redsland
05-14-2004, 09:38 PM
Players with more than five years of service time can refuse an assignment to the minors.

The rule was alluded to in this (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20040426&content_id=729785&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp) article about Kevin Jarvis at mlb.com.

Jarvis has enough Major League service time to refuse a minor league assignment and still receive the remainder of his $4.25 million contract this season, plus a $500,000 option for 2005. If the Mariners release Jarvis, another MLB team can sign him for the minimum salary -- $300,000 pro-rated -- and Seattle would have to pick up the rest of the guaranteed contract.
The rule (and other arcane rules) are defined here (http://kmbumb.people.wm.edu/glossary.html).