PDA

View Full Version : Castellini group expected to buy Reds



flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:02 PM
Breaking news: An ownership group led by local businessman Robert Castellini is expected to buy a majority stake in the Cincinnati Reds and will likely assume operating control of the team, sources said today.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051102/SPT04/51102012

Castellini group expected to buy majority stake in Reds
By Cliff Peale, John Erardi and John Fay
Enquirer staff writers


An ownership group led by local businessman Robert Castellini is expected to buy a majority stake in the Cincinnati Reds and will likely assume operating control of the team, sources said today.

The team is expected to issue a press release at 4 p.m.

Under terms of the agreement, it’s believed that Reds owner Carl Lindner will give up control of the team.

Castellini, 64, is the president of Castellini Co., a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, and has ties to baseball. He is part of the St. Louis Cardinals’ ownership group headed by Cincinnatian Bill DeWitt, who is that team’s chairman. Castellini and DeWitt previously invested in the Baltimore Orioles.

Sources say brothers Thomas L. and W. Joseph Williams are in Castellini’s ownership group. Tom Williams is the president of North American Properties, which is headquartered in Cincinnati. Joseph Williams is the chairman.

North American Properties has offices in Atlanta, Dallas, Ft. Myers and Minneapolis.

It was started in 1954 by William J. Williams, who owned the Reds with his brother James from 1980-84.

Three minority owners of the team put shares totalling 51.5 percent up for sale on March 8. That consortium included the Louise Dieterle Nippert Trust, local investor George Strike, and a subsidiary of Gannett Co., which owns The Enquirer.

Although more than 50 percent of the team went up for sale, owner Carl Lindner is “CEO for life” of the Reds, per his ownership agreement. Lindner owns 37.5 percent of the club.

Lindner has first right to match any offer for the shares on sale, along with William Reik, an investment manager in New York who controls about 11 percent of the team. A source today said Reik will retain that percentage of ownership in the team. It’s not known whether Lindner will keep his share of the team.

Assuming an agreement is reached with the Castellini group and a contract is signed, the next step in the deal requires approval by Major League Baseball owners.

While the sale would end the mystery of who controls the Reds, only time will tell the answer to this question: How much money will the new owners spend on the Reds, and what is the status of chief operating officer John Allen, general manager Dan O’Brien, and manager Jerry Narron.

O’Brien and Narron each have one year remaining on their contracts.

In 2005, the Reds’ payroll was just under $62 million. Although that represented a $16 million increase over 2004’s payroll, the returns were modest. The team finished 73-89, good for fifth place in the six-team National Central League Division. Cincinnati has not had a winning season since 2000. It’s the longest losing streak since the team endured 11 straight losing seasons, from 1945-55.

By way of comparison, the New York Yankees’ payroll last year was the highest in the league at $208,306,817. The World Champion Chicago White Sox’s payroll was just over $75 million.

Tom Williams became president of North American Properties in 1991. He was a lawyer at the law firm of Frost & Jacobs, has a bachelor of arts degree from Georgetown University, and a law degree from the University of Cincinnati.

Joe Williams has a bachelor’s degree from Xavier University. The brothers were also part of the Cardinals ownership group.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:04 PM
Uncle Carl is out?

Will anyone else follow?

westofyou
11-02-2005, 04:06 PM
Castellini, 64, is the president of Castellini Co., a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, and has ties to baseball. He is part of the St. Louis Cardinals’ ownership group headed by Cincinnatian Bill DeWitt, who is that team’s chairman. Castellini and DeWitt previously invested in the Baltimore Orioles.
St. Louis again.....

KronoRed
11-02-2005, 04:06 PM
So it begins.

MartyFan
11-02-2005, 04:06 PM
Thank You Jesus!

M2
11-02-2005, 04:06 PM
Wicked cool. I was hoping for the Broadway guys, because they'd come with built-in marketing savvy, but I've always said the Cardinals were an excellent model for the Reds to steal from.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:07 PM
So it begins.We can only hope they fire the GM in short order and remove any baseball decision making from John Allen(he can stay as a bean counter).

westofyou
11-02-2005, 04:09 PM
I've always said the Cardinals were an excellent model for the Reds to steal from.
I can hardly wait, baby
I can hardly wait
'til we go down to the well
down to the well

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:10 PM
Under terms of the agreement, itís believed that Reds owner Carl Lindner will give up control of the team.[/QUOTE]

I hope and pray that this is true.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:10 PM
I'll reserve judgement on the new ownership. If they don't immediately fire DanO then I will remain skeptical.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:11 PM
Under terms of the agreement, it’s believed that Reds owner Carl Lindner will give up control of the team.
I can't imagine a group would spend $100M+ on the Reds just to be shut out of the decision making.

doug flynn
11-02-2005, 04:11 PM
Under terms of the agreement, itís believed that Reds owner Carl Lindner will give up control of the team.


First good news from Redsland in a long time. Just hope it's not the last.

lollipopcurve
11-02-2005, 04:12 PM
I know Tom Williams -- or I should say I knew him growing up.

Should be interesting to see how active he and his brother get in the day to day. I think I'd prefer they get industry people in there and let them work.

MartyFan
11-02-2005, 04:13 PM
I think John Allen has to go...I mean, he can count beans someplace else...maybe a grocery store...they have beans.

Caseyfan21
11-02-2005, 04:17 PM
Did I read that right where it said he is part of the Cardinals ownership group? I would hope he would be planning to sell that stake assuming he becomes Reds owner. Otherwise, that is a huge conflict of interest and one that I, as a Reds fan, would be very upset about. Other than that, I really don't know much about this guy or how he operates his businesses. I think the two things we should concentrate on are how he operates a business and how much he is worth. Combine those two and it might shed a little bit of light on how he might operate the Reds.

Joseph
11-02-2005, 04:18 PM
I can't imagine MLB would let someone own stake in two teams in the same division.

M2
11-02-2005, 04:18 PM
Beans, beans, good for your heart ...

Then again, that might impress a produce magnate.

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:19 PM
A clean sweep should be the first order of business.

Start from the top and go all the way down.

Allen, O'brien, Narron...Heck if they feel like giving Marty the boot, go ahead.

The franchise needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, and no one should be spared.

Change the culture, change the attitude.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:19 PM
Beans, beans, good for your heart ...
... the more you eat ...

M2
11-02-2005, 04:21 PM
Did I read that right where it said he is part of the Cardinals ownership group? I would hope he would be planning to sell that stake assuming he becomes Reds owner. Otherwise, that is a huge conflict of interest and one that I, as a Reds fan, would be very upset about.

By league mandate you can't own a stake in more than one team. He'll have to sell his Cardinals shares. Actually, it's good news that he's already in ownership elsewhere as it should grease the skids for the sale approval. Castellini's already a known commodity and MLB doesn't like to hold up transactions like this.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:22 PM
A clean sweep should be the first order of business.

Start from the top and go all the way down.

Allen, O'brien, Narron...Heck if they feel like giving Marty the boot, go ahead.

The franchise needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, and no one should be spared.

Change the culture, change the attitude.I agree but no reason to fire Narron yet, let the next GM make that call. Narron proved to be at least capable. The on-field manager is the least of the organizational problems.

Blimpie
11-02-2005, 04:22 PM
I can't imagine MLB would let someone own stake in two teams in the same division.Of course, the main arbiter, the league itself has technically owned the Expos/Nats for how many years now?

westofyou
11-02-2005, 04:22 PM
I can't imagine MLB would let someone own stake in two teams in the same division.
Not since 1899

paintmered
11-02-2005, 04:23 PM
Are there any obvious reasons that would hold up this sale?

How long does the MLB approval process usually take?

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:23 PM
By league mandate you can't own a stake in more than one team. He'll have to sell his Cardinals shares. Actually, it's good news that he's already in ownership elsewhere as it should grease the skids for the sale approval. Castellini's already a known commodity and MLB doesn't like to hold up transactions like this.should be smooth sailing and quick approval. I will turn from optimism to pessimism if they let DanO serve out the last year of his deal.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:25 PM
How long does the MLB approval process usually take? ... as long as they want it to. It will have to go to a vote before the other owners. At that point it is usually a fait accompli.

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:25 PM
I agree but no reason to fire Narron yet, let the next GM make that call. Narron proved to be at least capable. The on-field manager is the least of the organizational problems.

I was just using Jerry as an example of how much sweeping change is needed.

Heck, fire Gapper too.

And those cats that shoot stuff at fans during the games.

Blow the whole derned thing up is my point.

Chip R
11-02-2005, 04:25 PM
Did I read that right where it said he is part of the Cardinals ownership group? I would hope he would be planning to sell that stake assuming he becomes Reds owner. Otherwise, that is a huge conflict of interest and one that I, as a Reds fan, would be very upset about.

MLB rules says that you can't own part of more than one franchise for that very reason. Of course you can be the commissioner and own a team too. :p:

I was kind of rooting for the Broadway guys. Perhaps put a little marketing jolt into the franchise. These guys sound about as colorful as Pat Boone. But I've been saying for a while now that when the team is sold it will be sold to local people who have stayed in the background. Basically younger versions of Uncle Carl.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:26 PM
Heck, fire Gapper too.Mr. Nerd ... er, I mean Mr Red needs to go first.

M2
11-02-2005, 04:26 PM
should be smooth sailing and quick approval. I will turn from optimism to pessimism if they let DanO serve out the last year of his deal.

That's certainly going to be the first test for the new ownership. Are they eager to put their own stamp on this franchise? If so, I can't see why they'd keep Allen or O'Brien around.

BTW, the Cardinals organization had what can best be described as a religious experience after reading "Moneyball." Just sayin'.

ochre
11-02-2005, 04:27 PM
Not since 1899 Christy Mathewson says :wave:

Chip R
11-02-2005, 04:28 PM
Of course, the main arbiter, the league itself has technically owned the Expos/Nats for how many years now?

Quiet, you. ;)

ochre
11-02-2005, 04:28 PM
That's certainly going to be the first test for the new ownership. Are they eager to put their own stamp on this franchise? If so, I can't see why they'd keep Allen or O'Brien around.

BTW, the Cardinals organization had what can best be described as a religious experience after reading "Moneyball." Just sayin'.
I hope that coming from a group that owned a fellow NL Central team they will have a good read on the [in]adequecy represented by Mr. O'Brien, et al.

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:28 PM
Mr. Nerd ... er, I mean Mr Red needs to go first.

Fire him too.

Reds4Life
11-02-2005, 04:30 PM
If this is true they need to dump DanO now and go after Depodesta or Theo.

Sweet Lou is still lurking in the shadows looking for a job as well.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:31 PM
Fire him too.That's not good enough. Maybe a new mascot of a fire breathing Red Dragon and he could come out on opening day and incinerate Mr. Nerd and Gapper.

Neo
11-02-2005, 04:31 PM
Anything on WLW?

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:31 PM
If this is true they need to dump DanO now and go after Depodesta or Theo.

Sweet Lou is still lurking in the shadows looking for a job as well.

See...The Baseball world is full of possibilities.

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:32 PM
That's not good enough. Maybe a new mascot of a fire breathing Red Dragon and he could come out on opening day and incinerate Mr. Nerd and Gapper.


Yeah...That would, like, symbolize something.

paintmered
11-02-2005, 04:33 PM
And once again there is hope in Redsland. :)


Can we get rid of all the in-between innings shenanigans too?

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:33 PM
See...The Baseball world is full of possibilities.... and we end up with Mr. Excitement ... a.k.a. DanO

M2
11-02-2005, 04:33 PM
These guys sound about as colorful as Pat Boone. But I've been saying for a while now that when the team is sold it will be sold to local people who have stayed in the background. Basically younger versions of Uncle Carl.

There might be one critical difference though, a generational one. If these guys are local and they're baseball fans then they've got the BRM burned into their brains. It's a strong imprint leading to a lofty expectation level. Carl never had it. I get the distinct impression the BRM was never anything more than cocktail party fodder to him, but if these guys were good-to-great fans of that club it would be an inoculation against terminal blandness.

Blimpie
11-02-2005, 04:33 PM
Anything on WLW?Traffic and Weather...on the "10's"....

RFS62
11-02-2005, 04:36 PM
It would really show their marketing savy if they were to get in touch with the premier Reds messageboard on the internet and say hello.

Or respond to an overture from said board, once the deal is announced.

M2
11-02-2005, 04:38 PM
It would really show their marketing savy if they were to get in touch with the premier Reds messageboard on the internet and say hello.

Or respond to an overture from said board, once the deal is announced.

Damn, I can't give you rep for that (got to spread it around a bit), but that idea totally deserves rep.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:38 PM
It would really show their marketing savy if they were to get in touch with the premier Reds messageboard on the internet and say hello.
... and it would really show their baseball savvy if they let us tell them what to do.:thumbup:

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:39 PM
It would really show their marketing savy if they were to get in touch with the premier Reds messageboard on the internet and say hello.

Or respond to an overture from said board, once the deal is announced.


Let's hope to gawd or whomever that they pay more attention than the past regime.

They'd be wise to have guys with their butts planted in front of this board five hours a day at least.

missionhockey21
11-02-2005, 04:40 PM
If Lindner gives up his controlling interest over the team and the new ownership group hires DePodesta..... I honestly would not feel worthy to receive any other Christmas gifts this year.

Is the Dark Ages finally over for us Reds fans?

paintmered
11-02-2005, 04:40 PM
Let's hope to gawd or whomever that they pay more attention than the past regime.

They'd be wise to have guys with their butts planted in front of this board five hours a day at least.


Let's make them a moderator, and kill two birds with one stone. :)

M2
11-02-2005, 04:44 PM
So, it's well past 4 p.m. and no press release yet (or at least none on the official team site). Can't believe I'm jazzed to see a press release.

paintmered
11-02-2005, 04:45 PM
Posted on RedsLive.


The Cincinnati Reds, LLC, the entity which owns the Cincinnati Reds Major League Baseball franchise, today announced that its owners intend to sell a controlling interest in the Club to a group of Cincinnatians led by Robert H. Castellini, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Castellini Company. Other members of the purchasing group include Thomas L. Williams and William J. Williams, Jr., President and Chairman, respectively, of Cincinnati-based North American Properties. The purchase price of the interests sold will be based on an enterprise value for the Club of approximately $270 million. Upon consummation of the transaction, it is expected that Mr. Castellini will become the CEO of the Reds.
Several of the existing owners, including Reds’ Chief Executive Officer Carl H. Lindner, George L. Strike, and William J. Reik, Jr., intend to retain an interest in the Club. The owners of the Club who intend to sell all their current interests are Great American Insurance Company and a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.
Mr. Castellini stated that, "Carl has meant so much to the Reds and the City of Cincinnati. As such, we are thrilled that he has agreed to continue his association with the Club as a significant partner in our ownership group. I look forward to finalizing the agreement and submitting our group for MLB approval in the very near future as we are very excited about this opportunity and are eager to get started on the work ahead."

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:47 PM
Okay, so I need someone smarter than me to answer this (that means everyone):

Is there any reason to believe that the new owners will let DanO live out his contract?

Will a new ownership group have time to immediately fire the GM, hold interviews, and hire a new one?

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:49 PM
Okay, so I need someone smarter than me to answer this (that means everyone):maybe not, Mr Freeze has shown up on the other board.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:51 PM
"Fire 'em all, Fire 'em all, the long and the short and the tall."
"Fire all the GMs and the CFO ones, Fire all scouts and their blinking sons"
"For we're saying good-bye to them all as back to GABP we crawl"

You'll have to do the melody on your own.

M2
11-02-2005, 04:52 PM
Is there any reason to believe that the new owners will let DanO live out his contract?

Will a new ownership group have time to immediately fire the GM, hold interviews, and hire a new one?

1) Anything could happen, but why buy a baseball team and not install your own regime? It's like getting yourself a basketball and not bouncing it.

2) Depends on Castellini's defintion of "time." They say there's no time like the present. Hopefully this is put to bed by the owners meeting in early December and that should afford the club plenty of time to swap out execs and make something of the offseason.

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:53 PM
maybe not, Mr Freeze has shown up on the other board.

Who's Mr Freeze?

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:54 PM
Who's Mr Freeze?Hint ... his number is very cold.

wheels
11-02-2005, 04:55 PM
1) Anything could happen, but why buy a baseball team and not install your own regime? It's like getting yourself a basketball and not bouncing it.

2) Depends on Castellini's defintion of "time." They say there's no time like the present. Hopefully this is put to bed by the owners meeting in early December and that should afford the club plenty of time to swap out execs and make something of the offseason.

This is actually my thinking as well, but I just wanted to give someone the chance to temper my enthusiasm a bit.

reds44
11-02-2005, 04:55 PM
Yipee!!!!

Like many have stated, we need to clean house. I would be gitty if we went out a got Theo/Lou, I doubt that happens though.

Chip R
11-02-2005, 04:56 PM
There might be one critical difference though, a generational one. If these guys are local and they're baseball fans then they've got the BRM burned into their brains. It's a strong imprint leading to a lofty expectation level. Carl never had it. I get the distinct impression the BRM was never anything more than cocktail party fodder to him, but if these guys were good-to-great fans of that club it would be an inoculation against terminal blandness.

I hope so. But if these guys are indicitive of your average millionaire here they are conservative (both socially and politically). They may have been big fans of the BRM but that may mean they think things were better back in the "good old days". They may think DanO is a hoot and John Allen is just the man to keep the franchise running like clockwork. I hope I'm wrong but I think it's more of Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss.

lollipopcurve
11-02-2005, 04:57 PM
Been reading up a little on Castellini. Owned riverfront land and was closely tied to Lindner in business relationships that helped escalate land value at the time of the development of PBS (on Castellini's land) and GAB on the riverfront. Huge donor to Bush. In short, these guys are all insiders, very well known to one another and politically connected.

flyer85
11-02-2005, 04:58 PM
Been reading up a little on Castellini.Does he have a cousin Vinnie?

RFS62
11-02-2005, 05:01 PM
Listen, these guys didn't buy this team because they believed the past 5 years are indicitave of the potential of the Reds brand.

They bought it because they believe it's a value investment that they can improve.

It won't improve with the current management.

Therefore, I'll bet Allen is gone for sure very quickly and very possibly DanO too.

CincyRedsFan30
11-02-2005, 05:02 PM
December 27, 1996
Castellini worried about stadium plans
Robert Castellini, a local businessman who owns extensive riverfront property, wrote a letter to County Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus detailing his fears that new stadium plans would exclude much of his property. Recently released plans showed a stadium for the Bengals located east of Central Avenue. Castellini believes the stadiums for the Reds and Bengals should be located as far apart as possible to facilitate other riverfront development and include his property.

westofyou
11-02-2005, 05:02 PM
Been reading up a little on Castellini. Owned riverfront land and was closely tied to Lindner in business relationships that helped escalate land value at the time of the development of PBS (on Castellini's land) and GAB on the riverfront. Huge donor to Bush. In short, these guys are all insiders, very well known to one another and politically connected.

Hmmmm...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=844269&postcount=28

RFS62
11-02-2005, 05:03 PM
Credit where credit is due, WOY. You called it.

CincyRedsFan30
11-02-2005, 05:05 PM
Lindner kept stake in Castellini Co. quiet
Financier owned firm during crucial land sale
Lucy May and Dan Monk
Courier Staff Reporters
In days, one of the last remnants of Cincinnati's old riverfront, Cinergy Field, will be imploded, blown into a million tiny pieces on the shores of the Ohio River. The timing is ironic, coming just weeks after the discovery of a missing puzzle piece for how Cincinnati's new riverfront took shape.

That puzzle piece was revealed Dec. 13 in an unlikely place, a one-page news release in which Chiquita Brands International Inc. announced it was selling its ownership stake in Greater Cincinnati's largest produce distribution firm, the Castellini Co., for $45 million. Chairman Robert Castellini and members of his management team bought the company back from Chiquita for $21 million in cash and assumption of debt.

The news registered barely a blip on the business radar screen, a relatively small deal that will give Chiquita a $10 million gain and decrease its annual earnings before taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by $8 million.

What made the deal interesting was that Chiquita, controlled until this year by Cincinnati financier Carl Lindner, had never previously disclosed that it owned Castellini, despite years of speculation that the ownership ties existed. That speculation reached a peak in the late 1990s, when some observers felt Lindner influenced the siting of Paul Brown Stadium to force Hamilton County to acquire Castellini's riverfront land. The county paid $36.5 million for Castellini's 24-acre riverfront property in 1998, although county officials now say Lindner had no impact on the decision.

Chiquita spokesman Michael Mitchell said Castellini got "the great bulk of the proceeds" from the land sale, since the real estate was owned by the Castellini family, not by the company.

Mitchell said Chiquita received a small share of the proceeds related to the county's purchase of lease agreements involving the Castellini Co.

Mitchell also said the banana company acquired "substantially all of the equity interest in Castellini" in 1988. Another news release, issued by Castellini Co., said Robert Castellini retained a majority of the voting stock.

"There was voting stock, and there was nonvoting stock," said Mitchell. "(Robert Castellini) owned a majority of the voting shares."

The voting stock gave Castellini control over the company's operations.

Both companies and Lindner, through a spokeswoman, declined to say how the ownership arrangement came about or say why it was never disclosed.

"It was not required under SEC disclosure rules," said Mitchell, "and we chose not to disclose it."

What all of that means in the context of Cincinnati's reinvented riverfront remains murky. By the time Paul Brown Stadium gave Castellini a way out of his riverfront property, Castellini had tried to redevelop the land himself for nearly a decade, first proposing a floating entertainment complex, then a mixture of hotels, retail and housing. Hampering those efforts was the fact that much of Castellini's land was in a flood plain, making it more costly to develop.

Nevertheless, Castellini was still working to develop the western riverfront when the Bengals began the stadium-development process by threatening to leave town in 1995. The Bengals' original goal was a new stadium located just west of the Roebling Suspension Bridge, a spot also coveted by the Cincinnati Reds, then owned by Marge Schott, with Lindner holding a minority stake.

After intense negotiations among business leaders and a lengthy public planning process, city and county officials moved the Bengals west. The Reds moved east, making way for The Banks, a mixed-use development that city and county leaders hope will produce housing, retail, office buildings and a hotel on the land between the stadiums.


Hamilton County Administrator David Krings said Lindner's ownership interest in the Castellini group had no impact on the county's stadium planning or negotiations. He said he wasn't even sure that he knew of Lindner's ownership stake. Other local business leaders, who did not want to be quoted, agreed with Krings that Lindner's ownership had no impact. Others aren't so sure.

Rob Fredericks, a legislative aide to Hamilton County Commissioner John Dowlin, said former Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus changed his bargaining stance on the Castellini land after receiving a phone call from Lindner. Fredericks said he attended a meeting where Bedinghaus disclosed the call.

Attorney Robert Manley, who represented several produce houses relocated by the Bengals' stadium project, said one of his clients told him Lindner directly negotiated Castellini's land sale with Bedinghaus. Manley said his client got that information from either Lindner or Bedinghaus. He wouldn't say which, nor would he identify the client.

Bedinghaus declined to comment for this story, but a local business leader, who didn't want to be identified but was close to the negotiations, downplayed Lindner's influence.

"I never saw his hand in that thing," he said.

Whatever Lindner's involvement, this much has long been clear: The Bengals siting decision added millions to the project's price tag. It meant the county had to purchase more land than originally expected and grant the Bengals concessions, including the placement of the team's three practice fields on the western riverfront.

Hamilton County initially budgeted $50 million for stadium land. In the end, it paid $68 million, including more than $1 million per acre for the Castellini property. The land-acquisition process also took longer than expected, forcing design changes and construction delays. The county once estimated moving Paul Brown Stadium further west added more than $100 million in stadium cost.

When asked if it was worth it, Krings said, "I think that the region is getting an excellent riverfront that it wouldn't have had otherwise."

Yet it has come at a cost the county continues to bear due to lower-than-expected sales tax revenues.

"Sometimes leadership is painful," Krings said.

M2
11-02-2005, 05:09 PM
I hope so. But if these guys are indicitive of your average millionaire here they are conservative (both socially and politically). They may have been big fans of the BRM but that may mean they think things were better back in the "good old days". They may think DanO is a hoot and John Allen is just the man to keep the franchise running like clockwork. I hope I'm wrong but I think it's more of Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss.

You might be right. Certainly if someone's going to do that, a bunch of conservative insider locals would be the leading suspects. We'll learn soon enough. Hopefully they remember you only get one chance to make a first impression.

wheels
11-02-2005, 05:09 PM
I completely understand how some folks might have reservations (too conservative, friends of Lindner, etc...), but whatever the socio-political bent of said new owner, the guy's got to have an understanding of how poorly run, and out of touch the franchise has become. All he has to do is look at the empty seats to see that something's amiss.

I don't care who they know, who they vote for, or who they pray to....I just want them to go out and find a GM that can win within whatever parameters they set.

Everything else is just peripheral.

Roy Tucker
11-02-2005, 05:11 PM
http://www.castellinicompany.com/

I see their trucks all over town.

Unassisted
11-02-2005, 05:11 PM
What made the deal interesting was that Chiquita, controlled until this year by Cincinnati financier Carl Lindner, had never previously disclosed that it owned Castellini, despite years of speculation that the ownership ties existed. So Lindner and Castellini are more than just country club friends. Lindner actually deserves a lot of the credit for Castellini's business success.

This also tells me that the culture of secrecy is unlikely to change with the new majority ownership. Castellini can keep secrets just as well as Uncle Carl.

wheels
11-02-2005, 05:15 PM
So Lindner and Castellini are more than just country club friends. Lindner actually deserves a lot of the credit for Castellini's business success.

This also tells me that the culture of secrecy is unlikely to change with the new majority ownership. Castellini can keep secrets just as well as Uncle Carl.

So you don't believe that he'll try to improve the investment he's just made?

Can you envision O'Brien, Allen and co. still on board?

I'm starting to get worried.

Mainspark
11-02-2005, 05:15 PM
URGENT
Lindner agrees to sell control of the Reds to local businessman
By JOE KAY
AP Sports Writer
CINCINNATI (AP) ó Carl Lindner agreed Wednesday to sell the controlling interest in the Cincinnati Reds to a group of area businessmen, keeping baseballís first professional franchise in local hands.
The group is headed by Robert Castellini, chairman of a Cincinnati-based produce company, and relatives of a family that owned the team from 1966-84.
The family sold control of the team to Marge Schott in the 1980s, setting up one of the clubís most turbulent periods. The Reds won a World Series in 1990 but were tainted by her repeated offensive remarks.
Under pressure from Major League Baseball, Schott sold her controlling shares in the team for $67 million to a group led by Lindner in 1999. The latest sale was set in motion last March, when three limited partners who owned 51.5 percent of the teamís shares indicated they wanted to sell.
Lindner said at the time that he intended to retain control of the team, which hasnít had a winning season since it moved into Great American Ball Park in 2003.
The purchase price sets the value of the franchise at approximately $270 million. The sale must be approved by baseball owners before it can be finalized.

M2
11-02-2005, 05:18 PM
Can you envision O'Brien, Allen and co. still on board?

I'm starting to get worried.

I'm in hope-for-the-best mode. That's a kick in the jewels I just don't need unless it really happens.

Aronchis
11-02-2005, 05:26 PM
Wheels, relax. Many possibilities. O'brien could actually be "kicked up stairs" while another GM is hired for example Allen could be reassigned ete ete ete, who knows what those guys want either.

This sounds like Lindner's handprints all over the sale. He gets rid of the operations control and becomes a Limited himself with Reik while Castellini takes over operations. That may be cause for concern, but hopefully Castellini is ready to bring some freshness to the organization that Carl is all to ready to have.

Reds4Life
11-02-2005, 05:26 PM
I wonder if the memory of 1990 might lead the new group to hire Lou? It would send a message to the fans that this ownership group is going to change things and no more status quo.

I’m probably dreaming, but the Reds are on the cusp of becoming the Bengals of the 1990’s, the new owners have to realize that.

Aronchis
11-02-2005, 05:29 PM
I wonder if the memory of 1990 might lead the new group to hire Lou? It would send a message to the fans that this ownership group is going to change things and no more status quo.

Iím probably dreaming, but the Reds are on the cusp of becoming the Bengals of the 1990ís, the new owners have to realize that.

No, the Reds are like the Rams of the 90's, the Royals/Pirates/Tigers are the Bengals.

Tony Cloninger
11-02-2005, 05:30 PM
This "he has to be local" stuff is just annoying.

Potentially better owners that have no ties to Linder....would have been what i wanted ...to feel like this team was not just going to continue down the path of bleakness.

Linder sold it to him...beacuse he knows him...probably thinks like him...and probably feels like "All is well."

KronoRed
11-02-2005, 05:42 PM
And once again there is hope in Redsland. :)


Till Dan O and Allen are still around on opening day :help:

MartyFan
11-02-2005, 05:43 PM
I completely understand how some folks might have reservations (too conservative, friends of Lindner, etc...), but whatever the socio-political bent of said new owner, the guy's got to have an understanding of how poorly run, and out of touch the franchise has become. All he has to do is look at the empty seats to see that something's amiss.

I don't care who they know, who they vote for, or who they pray to....I just want them to go out and find a GM that can win within whatever parameters they set.

Everything else is just peripheral.


You said it...I am with you.:beerme:

Gallen5862
11-02-2005, 05:48 PM
Hopefully we could sign Theo as our GM or some other front office job.

Gallen5862
11-02-2005, 05:53 PM
M2 I gave rsf62 The rep for the idea about new owners talking on this board.

Unassisted
11-02-2005, 05:55 PM
So you don't believe that he'll try to improve the investment he's just made?

Can you envision O'Brien, Allen and co. still on board?

I'm starting to get worried.The article shows how those two are tied together at the wallet. You don't let someone into your wallet unless you trust them. Guys from Carl's generation are most likely to trust those who think like they do. I get a feeling that this is like Carl handing over the reins to a "favorite nephew" whom he helped get started in business.

I don't foresee change happening at any faster pace in that scenario, so this feels like a victory for the status quo.

Falls City Beer
11-02-2005, 06:00 PM
Till Dan O and Allen are still around on opening day :help:


Everyone on this board gets a case of Falls City Beer (bottles baby) if Allen and DanO actually get the axe.

Something tells me my wallet stays in my pocket.

guttle11
11-02-2005, 06:03 PM
This is certainly enough to bring me out of my self-imposed Reds exile. Very good news indeed.

Now that being said, I am nothing more than cautiously optimistic.But that's
a start.:thumbup:

RFS62
11-02-2005, 06:07 PM
Everyone on this board gets a case of Falls City Beer (bottles baby) if Allen and DanO actually get the axe.

Something tells me my wallet stays in my pocket.



Wow, that almost insures their demise!!!!

How you gonna swing this, FCB? You got another kid ready to sell a kidney or something?

traderumor
11-02-2005, 06:08 PM
http://www.porterfieldsfineart.com/josephholodook/images/ripvanwinkle72.jpg
:sleep: :wave:

What, what's this I hear? Should I wake up or not (religious and political leanings notwithstanding in violation of rule 16(b)3i of the RZ Revised code)?

ochre
11-02-2005, 06:20 PM
I'm right there with you all that are skeptical. I'm going to give them a few weeks before I'm ready to walk the plank though (pirate reference added for Krono). So far I get a strong "I smell a rat" sensation. I can't help but see this as better than what we had before, but I've been burned by that too many times as a Reds and Bengals fan. At heart I am an optimist.

Aronchis
11-02-2005, 06:51 PM
Castellini may be a Lindner red herring but it could be also that Lindner believes the Reds need some fresh prespectives(as they do) and got somebody from the Cardinals ownership group who can provide them.

I could see Castellini being a very hands off owner except in his decision who will be President of Operations(who will then hire the rest of the FO) and revenue(which I figure Lindner and Reik will have a say in).

Reds4Life
11-02-2005, 06:55 PM
I think most will be skeptical until we see some changes, but there is still a ray of hope, even though it might be small.

Joseph
11-02-2005, 06:57 PM
I think most will be skeptical until we see some changes, but there is still a ray of hope, even though it might be small.

I think that sums up the overall feelings I have. I'm excited, but I'm tempering it with a bit of reality.

wheels
11-02-2005, 06:58 PM
I still can't get my brain around the idea that just because these guys are friends with Lindner it means that they'll have no interest in fielding a winning club.

Weren't these guys involved with Bill Dewitt?

Isn't there a small chance that they've picked up some ideas along the way?

They are new blood, and they're vastly more experienced at baseball ownership than Carl was when he took over.

Maybe I am overly optimistic, but it feels pretty good right now.

M2
11-02-2005, 07:01 PM
My view is it's good news until their actions indicate otherwise.

MWM
11-02-2005, 07:01 PM
I couldn't be more disappointed. In my former life as an auditor, I spent a decent amount of time at the Castellini companies and got to know them quite well. And if they way they run those businesses is any indication, don't expect to see many changes.....AT ALL.

My prediction....John Allen sticks around. I'm not sure on DanO, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him stick around. If he doesn't make it, expect Wayne Krivsky to be the replacement, which might not be a bad thing.

Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just shoot me now.

wheels
11-02-2005, 07:05 PM
I couldn't be more disappointed. In my former life as an auditor, I spent a decent amount of time at the Castellini companies and got to know how them quite well. And if they way they run those businesses is any indication, don't expect to see many changes.....AT ALL.

My prediction....John Allen sticks around. I'm not sure on DanO, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him stick around. If he doesn't make it, expect Wayne Krivsky to be the replacement, which might not be a bad thing.

Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just shoot me now.

What is it about what you witnessed that leads you to specifically believe that we won't see any changes?

Heath
11-02-2005, 07:10 PM
I'm cautiously optimistic with this...but "status quo" is screaming in the background.

Perhaps we can get some idea on re-building a farm system and new thoughts into promotion and winning.

Perhaps we can get a "baseball guy" to work with a bean counter.

Perhaps successes of the BRM with the Williams' would rub off through new bloodlines.

Perhaps...Perhaps...Perhaps...until then....:dunno:

MWM
11-02-2005, 07:12 PM
What is it about what you witnessed that leads you to specifically believe that we won't see any changes?

Very old-fahioned way of doing business in almost every way. I noticed it right away and it was as clear as a bell. There was nothing at all innovative about their companies and it was a very stale culture. That was my overall perception when I was there (it's been about 5 years). But most importantly, I saw a lot of cronyism and a lot of good old boys in all the important roles. I'm not suggesting I'm an expert on their company. And there's no indication that they'll run the Reds the same way. But based on what I DO know I'm not optimistic. But take that with a grain of salt. Time will tell if they'll be good owners. But anything is better than Lindner. So in no way is this not at least a little positive. I hope I'm dead wrong. But I was hoping for the Broadway guys, so that just makes the disappointment a little stronger.

I think a good litmus test is John Allen. If he stays, then we're in trouble. If he goes, there might be some hope.

Falls City Beer
11-02-2005, 07:13 PM
What is it about what you witnessed that leads you to specifically believe that we won't see any changes?

They're Cincinnati-based business people?

They've been busy selling hamburgers to the Fat Boys and the Weather Girls--undoubtedly the marketing acumen of Foster Brooks. (As if I know what the hell that means).

wheels
11-02-2005, 07:24 PM
Very old-fahioned way of doing business in almost every way. I noticed it right away and it was as clear as a bell. There was nothing at all innovative about their companies and it was a very stale culture. That was my overall perception when I was there (it's been about 5 years). But most importantly, I saw a lot of cronyism and a lot of good old boys in all the important roles. I'm not suggesting I'm an expert on their company. And there's no indication that they'll run the Reds the same way. But based on what I DO know I'm not optimistic. But take that with a grain of salt. Time will tell if they'll be good owners. But anything is better than Lindner. So in no way is this not at least a little positive. I hope I'm dead wrong. But I was hoping for the Broadway guys, so that just makes the disappointment a little stronger.

I think a good litmus test is John Allen. If he stays, then we're in trouble. If he goes, there might be some hope.

Can't agree with you last point more. Excellent point.

As far as I'm concerned, they can be as stodgy and old fashioned as they want.

The real question is are they intelligent enough to hire the right guy at GM, or are they at least lucky enough to stumble on to him?

redsfan30
11-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Change=good.

Negative vibes from those who know more than me=not good.

I'll reserve judgement until I see how things will be done.

Cooper
11-02-2005, 07:28 PM
Castellini + very rebublican= no Theo. Would Theo put politics aside?

MWM
11-02-2005, 07:29 PM
We should all reserve judgment on this. I'm probably over-reacting here becaue I had hopes for the Broadway guys. And I'm a marketing guy myself, so I'm predisposed to want that expertise oozing from the ownership group. The Castellin companies are very successful companies, but marketing is not what they do well.

wheels
11-02-2005, 07:32 PM
Hey, the whole thing just went down, so I think it's cool to speculate and opine about it.

It's kinda fun to have something to react to.

In my opinion, we haven't had something this important happen since I've been on redszone.

I wonder where Steel is, btw. He's conspicuous in his absense.

M2
11-02-2005, 07:42 PM
Castellini + very rebublican= no Theo. Would Theo put politics aside?

I think geography would be the bigger issue, but Theo's grandfather was a Joe McCarthy target. I've heard his father say that growing up on a hit list means that you're not comfortable in a whole lot of places, that you're careful about who you trust and you pay a lot of attention to the culture around you. How much of that seeped down to Theo? Probably a decent chunk of it.

KronoRed
11-02-2005, 07:52 PM
I think a good litmus test is John Allen. If he stays, then we're in trouble. If he goes, there might be some hope.
100% agreed, if Allen stays on in the same spot then it's a big sign that these guys are the same as the old.

M2
11-02-2005, 07:53 PM
One thing that might work in Reds fans favor - if these guys are true business conservatives then "Moneyball" was written for them. I mentioned earlier that St. Louis was one place where that book made an impact. Tony LaRussa might bad mouth it, but the front office and scouting department has come to live by it.

SteelSD
11-02-2005, 08:03 PM
Hey, the whole thing just went down, so I think it's cool to speculate and opine about it.

It's kinda fun to have something to react to.

In my opinion, we haven't had something this important happen since I've been on redszone.

I wonder where Steel is, btw. He's conspicuous in his absense.

Oh, I'm here. I'm just don't really see an immediate housecleaning at this point. First, the deal is going to be pretty complex (as these things are, of course) and will involve a secondary transaction of selling off shares of another club. That's all going to take time. And, considering the proximity of the GM and Winter Meetings, maybe too much time.

Secondly, we're talking about a guy who is apparantly already has a relationship with Lindner and Lindner is still going to be around in some capacity. Oh, Lindner won't be calling the shots, but I don't fully trust that a new owner with a prior relationship is going to come in and immediately throw Lindner's entire Front Office under a bus- particularly when said new owner(s) might want to take time to evaluate the whole organization while the current GM is going into the final season of his contract.

I'm just not as excited as I need to be to care as much as I should...

...yet.

Unassisted
11-02-2005, 08:15 PM
Secondly, we're talking about a guy who is apparantly already has a relationship with Lindner and Lindner is still going to be around in some capacity. Oh, Lindner won't be calling the shots, but I don't fully trust that a new owner with a prior relationship is going to come in and immediately throw Lindner's entire Front Office under a bus- particularly when said new owner(s) might want to take time to evaluate the whole organization while the current GM is going into the final season of his contract.Well said. This is the core of my discontent with the turn of events.

oregonred
11-02-2005, 08:17 PM
But, isn't John Allen a holdover from the Marge suspension days -- Lindner seemed indifferent keeping both the inherited Allen/Bowden around for years.

Agree John Allen's fate is the first proof point that things will change

oregonred
11-02-2005, 08:20 PM
Castellini + very rebublican= no Theo. Would Theo put politics aside?

Is this a GM for a legendary baseball team or clerking for a Supreme Court justice? What's the point?

RFS62
11-02-2005, 08:25 PM
Allen is history.

You gotta believe.

KronoRed
11-02-2005, 08:27 PM
Allen is history.

You gotta believe.
Share whatever it is you have ;)

Larkin Fan
11-02-2005, 08:28 PM
Allen is history.

You gotta believe.

I wish I could. As others have said, removal of Allen is the only way that they can prove to me that things are going to change for the better. Time will tell.

WVRedsFan
11-02-2005, 09:02 PM
I wish I could. As others have said, removal of Allen is the only way that they can prove to me that things are going to change for the better. Time will tell.

Well, I do. It probably won't happen tomorrow or the next day or the next day, but there will be a new management team in place by the first of the year. Why? You don't spend time in a successful organization like St. Louis without some good things rubbing off. And Lindler and Castellini may be friends and have a "daddy-son" relationship, but if he's worth anything as a businessman, and apparently he is, there will be wholesale changes. The produce business is way different than a MLB club and I'd think he knows that by now.

I look for Allen to go first, O'Brien to be kicked upstairs, and new blood to be put into place. What of Narron? The new GM will make that decision, probably at the All-Star break (if things are going bad) or at the end of the season. Why a new GM? The winter meetings. And I'd also expect for Lindner to do what they want in the meantime because of those meetings.

Why am I so confident? If a little old Insurance guy in Nexttonowhere, WV can see how disfunctional this organization is, surely a man who has been a part of the St. Louis Cardinals can see the same thing. If not, he's dumber than a coal bucket (as my Dad would say).

RFS62
11-02-2005, 09:16 PM
I agree with you, WVRedsfan.

How could ANY respectable businessman not believe that wholesale changes must be made to make this a good investment?

GAC
11-02-2005, 09:16 PM
Allen is history.

You gotta believe.

"He'll be his.... He'll be his....He'll be history!"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/munchkins.jpg

Unassisted
11-02-2005, 09:17 PM
My favorite part of this roasting?

"No Reds owner has ever done less with more than Lindner, the historians said. The “more” was a new stadium on the river largely paid for the taxpayers; the less” was the quality of the team."

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051102/SPT04/311020016/1071&template=printpicart

Analysis: Lindner lacks drive

By John Erardi
Enquirer staff writer

It’s been a rough seven years for the Reds and principal owner Carl Lindner.

The last five of those have been losing seasons, the worst such stretch since the Reds had 11 consecutive losing years from 1945-55.

“It’s no coincidence that Powel Crosley owned the Reds back then,” said John Snyder, a Reds historian and author of Reds books. “He and Carl Lindner both ran the club as a civic enterprise.”

Lindner tried to make more of a splash than Crosley - among the examples are the Ken Griffey Jr. trade in 2000, and adding $17 million to the payroll last year to no avail - but otherwise, Lindner didn’t appear any more driven than Crosley in the 1950s to do all in his power to get the Reds into the World Series, Snyder said.

Although Lindner succeeded in putting the Reds on stable financial footing - as had been his goal when he took over from Marge Schott - that stability didn’t translate into success on the field, the ultimate measuring stick for any owner in professional sports, say Reds historians.

So, what is Lindner’s legacy as the principal Reds owner?
“He had a new stadium paid for by the taxpayers … but (he’ll be remembered for having) put no plan in effect to build the ballclub,” said Kevin Grace, author of several books of Reds histories.

“He blew a huge opportunity,” said Snyder. “He could have filled that stadium for years to come by spending money to bring in people (to run the ballclub) who really knew what they were doing … Just look at the way this ballclub is constructed. You want a legacy? There it is right there.”

No Reds owner has ever done less with more than Lindner, the historians said. The “more” was a new stadium on the river largely paid for the taxpayers; the less” was the quality of the team.

In 2003, the year Great American Ball Park opened, the Reds were 69-93 (.426, fifth place) and Lindner was roundly booed when he took the field on Opening Day 2004. Reds fans had been promised that when the team got a new stadium that it would contend strongly for a spot the playoffs.

Lindner’s “intentions were good,” Grace said, but the lack of a plan and the failure to hire “people with fresh ideas as well as experience in building a ballclub” undermined any chance to capitalize fully on the excitement of new ballpark at the time it opened.

It was Lindner himself who said he didn’t expect to make money on the Reds, he just didn’t want to lose a lot. He wanted to break even. It was a horribly flawed strategy for a team going into a new ballpark, Snyder said.

Lindner’s ownership will be compared to the ownership group the previous time the Reds moved into a new stadium, historians said.

Although baseball’s economics were different in 1967 when “617 Inc.” ramped up the Reds by hiring Bob Howsam from St. Louis as the club’s new general manager, it was a prime example of how one new ownership group had a specific plan as it headed into a new stadium (1970) and the Lindner group did not, Snyder said.

The 617 group made it clear it wanted someone with major league experience, who understood the use of promotions in building interest and believed deeply in a farm system and knew how to bolster it. Howsam had opened a minor league ballpark in Denver and a major league park in St. Louis.

He already had a lot to work with when he got here - Pete Rose and Tony Perez in the fold, and Johnny Bench coming out of Triple A - but he made trades and drafts that brought in pitching (Clay Carroll, Wayne Simpson, Wayne Granger, Pedro Borbon, Jim Merritt, Jim McGlothlin, Rawley Eastwick, Ross Grimsley and Don Gullett) and hired Sparky Anderson as the team’s new manager after the 1969 season.

The Reds started the 1970 season in Crosley Field, and after one month in their new digs at Riverfront Stadium, were 70-30, the best start since the 1944 Cardinals.

The Big Red Machine of 1970-1979 won two World Championships, four pennants and six divisions. A quarter of a century later, it remains the gold standard, having set the record for single-season attendance (2.6 million in 1976).

Grace gave Lindner high marks for making possible the huge splash of bringing Griffey Jr. back to town, but characterized the $27 million dollar, three-year contract awarded to Barry Larkin in 2002 as an albatross to club trying to field a productive team while keeping a close eye on the bottom line.

“You have to separate the success of the team in wins and losses from the stability of the franchise in a business sense,” said agent and attorney Brian Goldberg, who represents Griffey. “It’s obvious to say that under this regime, the franchise is very stable in the business sense, but unfortunately it hasn’t translated into wins and losses.”

Lindner faced heavy criticism from fans in 2004 for cutting the Reds’ player payroll. But in 2005, Lindner pushed through $17 million in new contracts, which had fans optimistic that the team could contend in the National League’s Central Division.

But that, too, backfired on him. Most of the signings, especially those of pitcher Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz, were busts.

Lindner had always insisted that he liked running the team, and wanted to win. But he wasn’t willing to lose millions of dollars to do it. In 2003, the Reds opened Great American Ball Park; he and his minority owners authorized a $62 million Opening Day payroll, only to see the team overshoot the budget and fail to contend on the field.

In 2003, at the MLB trading deadline, the club fired manager Bob Boone and general manager Jim Bowden and traded several of its best players, including Aaron Boone and Jose Guillen. That stopped a three-year stretch when the team lost $27 million in 2000, 2001 and 2002 combined.

That’s the kind of struggle it’s been for Lindner.

GAC
11-02-2005, 09:18 PM
Not that I want to spoil anyone's enthusiasm or optimism, but I remember people's excitement when a billionaire named Lindner bought the majority ownership of this team. I still remember what alot were saying, and how this guy was gonna turn it around, enfuse his millions into this team and yadda, yadda, yadda. ;)

We'll see.

MWM
11-02-2005, 09:21 PM
How could ANY respectable businessman not believe that wholesale changes must be made to make this a good investment?

Lindner's a respectable businessman isn't he? I'm not worried about knowing that changes needing to be made. That's a given. I worry about them knowing the RIGHT changes to make. Big difference, IMO.

RFS62
11-02-2005, 09:23 PM
Lindner's a respectable businessman isn't he? I'm not worried about knowing that changes needing to be made. That's a given. I worry about them the RIGHT changes to make. Big difference, IMO.


Yep, and what had just happened when he came in?

The '99 run for the pennant and then they signed Junior.

A little different than the last 5 years, eh?

MWM
11-02-2005, 09:29 PM
We'll see. I'm a skeptic by nature, so it should come as no surprise that I'm a skeptic about Castellini. I'll give him a fair shot. If he gets rid of Allen and DanO, I'll sing his praises, I promise.

Krusty
11-02-2005, 09:32 PM
I doubt very much the new ownership will start cleaning house till after they spend next season looking to see who stays and who needs to go.

westofyou
11-02-2005, 09:34 PM
Carl's tax break ended and it's time to move on, with attendance dropping last year below 2 million any non movement by a new owner would be suicide.

MWM
11-02-2005, 09:37 PM
I doubt very much the new ownership will start cleaning house till after they spend next season looking to see who stays and who needs to go.

They haven't been in a cave the last 5 years. Why on God's green earth (figuratively speaking....I'm an agnostic ;) ) would they need to "wait and see"? That's not the way business works, especially in a business as visible as professional baseball. I can't imagine how they wouldn't know enough to know that John Allen and DanO are both in WAY over their heads.

RFS62
11-02-2005, 09:39 PM
I'll give him a fair shot. If he gets rid of Allen and DanO, I'll sing his praises, I promise.


I know you will *cough*bandwaggon jumper*cough*. :evil:


See, I don't think it even takes an astute businessman to want to scrub the stench of death, misery and despair out of this front office before he moves in. I think even a rank amateur would want to distance himself as far as possible from ANY possible connection to the past few years of ineptitude.

Even Carl Lindner, a man who's built hospitals and done more to help people in Cincinnati than anyone I've ever heard of was tarred with the failures associated with his ownership of the Reds. The new group HAS to be painfully aware of the climate of hostility towards the front office that exists here.

No way I'm keeping the same group in charge if it's my team now. They get sacked whether they deserve it or not.

MWM
11-02-2005, 09:42 PM
Maybe so, but I sure as heck hope he doesn't make the same stupid mistake McCourt made and try to latch on to the past when the franchise was successful in the 70s. I want NEW. NEW, NEW, NEW!!!! Out with old.

M2
11-02-2005, 09:56 PM
I doubt very much the new ownership will start cleaning house till after they spend next season looking to see who stays and who needs to go.

Unless they've never seen a baseball game in their lives or they're sort of slow upstairs I'm not really quite sure what they'd need to spend a year evaluating. The Reds are a consistently bad club that doesn't draw that well suffering from epidemically bad pitching. Isn't that obvious? Isn't that the same sorry line DanO pitched out there?

More importantly, wouldn't that be like erecting a giant neon sign that this new ownership is lost at sea?

IMO, doing nothing for a year would speak volumes.

SteelSD
11-02-2005, 10:03 PM
Well said. This is the core of my discontent with the turn of events.

Yeah, I'm not so much feeling discontent. It's just a difficult situational dynamic to read without being able to polymorph into a fly on a wall somewhere during those talks.

On one hand, you have new controlling ownership coming in that has a previous relationship with outgoing controlling ownership and said prior owner is still going to be around. That could end up meaning that Castellini's group was more attractive because Lindner could trust Castellini's word that he'd leave things alone for a season before moving on things to give his previous GM choice a chance to make good. And, if Castellini has been at all swayed by the negative press Frank McCourt is currently receiving for being too "rash", he may be ok with taking his time to evaluate the state of the Reds from the inside out and then put his fingerprint on the franchise later during- or after- the 2006 season.

BUT...

On the other hand, the new ownership has been tied to an extremely successful well-run organization. I have to think they know what one of those looks like and that they realize the Reds aren't one.

It's possible that the extent of Castellini's "friendship" for Linder will manifest itself by allowing Lindner to hang around in the hope that he can still get a piece of the "legacy" (in a positive way) and that Castellini and Co. would "protect" Lindner from possible backlash that would be associated with undoing the damage caused by Lindner and Co. That's a probable scenario if Lindner was just tired of dealing with the club.

In that situation, giving up controlling ownership may have made the Castellini group's offer (including the controlling ownership change) more appealing to Lindner- who may have been unsure as to whether or not another potential ownership group would have blown it all up immediately while leaving nothing but schrapnel imbedded in those previously associated with the club (including those STILL associated but not in control). If that's the case, I could see a Front Office housecleaning because Castellini's prior relationship with Linder could be perceived as an insulation factor by Lindner, his advisors, and the remaining limited partners.

All of that is pure "CSI SD" of course, but both are examples of how Castellini's prior relationship might allow for either an immediate FO purge or, instead, lay the groundwork for Dan O'Brien's last season with the club. And both are easy PR spins which, not coincidentally, would insulate Carl Lindner from further blame.

Personally, I think whatever is going to happen was already determined before the offer was made and accepted. I think we'll be able to mine more clues as this whole thing progresses.

MWM
11-02-2005, 10:12 PM
polymorph

How many beers did it take for you to come up with that word? :evil: I'm guessing about 14 with the way you drink. :pimp:

ochre
11-02-2005, 10:16 PM
That's old school D&D. Well, that's what zombie said anyway.

cincinnati chili
11-02-2005, 10:42 PM
Forgive me if I missed this in the articles... A question that I'd like to ask is whether Lindner took the highest bid. If the Rick Steiner Group (the Broadway guys) put in a higher bid, then that would worry me for reasons too numerous to name here.

The guys who bought the Red Sox did NOT put in the highest bid, but the Harrington's took it because Selig was confident that the Henry/Werner group would "play ball." Fortunately for Boston, that turned out well.

I'm reserving judgment, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Any more dirt on Castellini (MWM's was helpful) would be nice.

Krusty
11-02-2005, 10:50 PM
The bigger question is how long will it take for MLB and the owners to approve the Reds sale? If it isn't approve till the Winter Meetings, then the Reds are better off letting O'Brien finish his final year as GM before thinking about replacing him.

As for John Allen, I definitely see them bring in their own Chief Operating Officer to run the franchise immediately.

RFS62
11-02-2005, 11:07 PM
To me this is a two step process.

Step one - dump the current management team. This takes little or no skill, other than public relations ability to maximize the positive public perception of the sacking. Any idiot can get in there and clean house.

Step two - hire the replacements. Here's where the future of the franchise hangs in the balance. Pick the right people for the job or suffer the consequences for years to come.

SteelSD
11-02-2005, 11:14 PM
That's old school D&D. Well, that's what zombie said anyway.

Um...what is this "D&D" you speak of???

It's also new school MTG. See, you guys don't know it but I put one MTG card name in each of my posts. "Polymorph" was easy. "Ishi-Ishi, Akki Crackshot", is going to be something altogether tougher and I'm not sure I'll be able to find a spot for "Hyalopterous Lemure" but anything's possible.;)

Nah...I don't really do that...maybe...

:evil:

johngalt
11-02-2005, 11:24 PM
The biggest key is how long the approval process takes. You would hope it would be quick so that the plan for the future is in place to begin this offseason. I would hate to see 2006 be sort of a throwaway/transition year because an approval came too late.

IslandRed
11-02-2005, 11:40 PM
Forgive me if I missed this in the articles... A question that I'd like to ask is whether Lindner took the highest bid. If the Rick Steiner Group (the Broadway guys) put in a higher bid, then that would worry me for reasons too numerous to name here.


Beats me. But earlier this year, Forbes' annual baseball evaluations had the Reds being worth $255 million, so the price being paid seems fair. There are certainly a lot of advantages to dealing with a former business partner and one pre-approved (so to speak) by MLB because of his Cardinals stake; Lindner was probably able to craft his minority share to his liking and won't have problems getting the sale through MLB quickly. I don't see anything amiss on the surface.

oregonred
11-03-2005, 01:25 AM
That could end up meaning that Castellini's group was more attractive because Lindner could trust Castellini's word that he'd leave things alone for a season before moving on things to give his previous GM choice a chance to make good.

I would suspect that 86-year old Carl Lindner has about a thousand other higher priorities than worrying about whether DanO gets another season as the Reds GM.

Roy Tucker
11-03-2005, 07:30 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but Allen apparently isn't under contract for 2006.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051103/SPT04/511030422

Thursday, November 3, 2005
What the Reds sale means

What happened?

Though the sale is not finalized, the Reds are about to have a new CEO, replacing Carl Lindner. Produce magnate Robert Castellini leads a group that will purchase controlling interest of Cincinnati's major-league baseball team. Brothers Thomas and W. Joseph Williams Jr. are also in the group.

What's next?

The baseball owners' meetings are Nov. 16-17 in Milwaukee. The Reds' deal probably will be discussed there, but it won't be approved that quickly, because too much has yet to be decided within the Reds' ownership group. It figures to take about 30 days to get the deal approved, and it probably will happen via an owners' teleconference call.

Who said what?

Nobody is saying much because of strict Major League Baseball rules prohibiting new owners in a pending sale from giving public comment beyond the barest essentials. Castellini did say Wednesday in a press release issued by the Reds: "... We are very excited about this opportunity and are eager to get started on the work ahead."

What it means to fans

We can't be sure just yet. Ultimately, it might mean a better team on the field. Fans can only hope Castellini will follow the lead of the St. Louis Cardinals, of which he holds some minority ownership shares that he will have to relinquish.

What it means to players

Again, who knows, really? The players certainly can't say publicly what they might be feeling, but they have to hope, just like fans, that the new CEO will spend more money and work harder to put a winning team on the field.

What it means to Reds officials

General manager Dan O'Brien and manager Jerry Narron have one year left on their contracts, and early indications are that they are safe for the time being. Reds chief operating officer John Allen is not believed to have a contract for 2006.

John Fay and John Erardi

MikeS21
11-03-2005, 07:54 AM
From today's Cincinnati Enquirer, in the article: "What the Reds' Sale Means"


General manager Dan O'Brien and manager Jerry Narron have one year left on their contracts, and early indications are that they are safe for the time being. Reds chief operating officer John Allen is not believed to have a contract for 2006.

I could live with O'Brien for one more year if it wasn't forthe fact that he will have another draft to screw up.

I don't see these owners making wholesale changes. They are not going to pay millions of dollars for the team and then willingly loose millions of dollars on the team.

michst
11-03-2005, 07:59 AM
Good news that John Allen doesn't have a contract. I would think they have some definite plans already in their heads. I would hope that since they decided to make a run at buying the Reds they used their contacts with the Cardinals to see what others in the league really felt about Obrien - and if he was in over his head.

I am optimistic that this is going to be a good sign. Maybe not total wholesale changes but I think in 2-3 seasons we will be a very good team.

smith288
11-03-2005, 08:18 AM
I have read through the thread and im alarmed at the poltical attacking this new ownership has. They have been accused of everything from cronyism/nepotism (trying the 1990's bengal's business model) all the way to a hint of McCarthyism preventing the Reds from hiring a Theo Epstein type of GM...Geez.

Good Lord, they are local business owners looking to take the team to a profitable level and a fair shot deserves to be given. They have shown a capacity to understand the business with their previous history and are linked to the VERY successfully ran Cardinals.

I cant say I wouldnt be a tad disappointed if the guy was a Moveon.org donating Michael Moore loving leftists but if he wants to make the Reds a winner, whatever. A smart business in todays culture REQUIRES a winner to make the most of your investment. Lindner's time has passed him by and this new ownership may have that intensity and drive to make a smart risk to FORCE a profitable product on the field.

I for one will default to excited and let action or inaction dictate from there.

zombie-a-go-go
11-03-2005, 08:25 AM
How many beers did it take for you to come up with that word? :evil: I'm guessing about 14 with the way you drink. :pimp:


Transmutation spell, 5th level, Wizard/Sorcerer spell list.

Like ochre said. :cool:

...


And let's keep the political comments out of this. As smith288 said, they have no place in this discussion, and anyway, it's against board rules. Woe betide the poster who gets this thread shut down because os political talk.

...

Anyway, I'm jazzed, even moreso by the fact that Allen isn't under contract for 06. Oh happy day, indeed.

Caveat Emperor
11-03-2005, 08:33 AM
I slept on this news before coming online to post -- mainly because I was frustrated at hearing this ownership news. The phrase that comes to mind, as someone else so elloquently put it, is: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

As much as it pains me to say it, the Reds need to be owned by someone who is either not from Cincinnati, or has left Cincinnati and moved on to someplace else. The team needs fresh blood, fresh ideas, and someone who thinks bigger than the market his team resides in. Nothing I've read about the new owner suggests to me that he will run this team as any way other than Carl Linder ran the team: as a business with a goal of being a PROFIT-MAKING franchise, as opposed to a winning franchise -- not neccessarily one in the same.

The new owners are not biased by previous decisions and they do not have their hands tied on issues -- they suffer no "loss of face" by firing anyone involved with the team right now. Theoretically, they should enter into the situation ready to clean house: they're going to be the proud owner of a ship of fools and it only makes sense to get rid of the crew. If they don't do just that, for any reason (most notably, out of respect for their friend Carl, who will still be sitting in the ownership meetings)...help us all.

We'll see what happens, but I'm less than excited by this ownership group. Hopefully they'll prove me wrong.

smith288
11-03-2005, 08:40 AM
No offense, Caveat, but no ownership in baseball today bought the team so it can be a winner...they bought it to make money.

The methods of getting to the point of making money creates an environment in the upper levels of management to provoke winning.

I highly doubt the new owners wanted to get into the Reds just to throw money in the drain to make peons like us happy. They did it to hopefully cash in and take advantage of the nastalgia, fan support and potential the Reds present to them. A combination of their loves for profit and the means to getting there could bode well for peons like us.

I have high hopes for their fresh perspective who have been part of successful franchises previously.

MWM
11-03-2005, 09:03 AM
If they keep DanO for a year because he's under contract, we're in deep trouble.

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 09:13 AM
If they keep DanO for a year because he's under contract, we're in deep trouble.Exactly. Even DanO has demonstrated in the past that it is okay to eat some contracts and that the end always justifies the means.

To Castellini (et al): Here's your bib...Enjoy!

Caveat Emperor
11-03-2005, 09:16 AM
No offense, Caveat, but no ownership in baseball today bought the team so it can be a winner...they bought it to make money.

The methods of getting to the point of making money creates an environment in the upper levels of management to provoke winning.

This is one of those "All squares are 4-sided figures, but not all 4-sided figures are not squares" arguments.

Ownership can mak money by winning, but ownership need not use winning as a method of creating profit. The Reds have proven they can be profitable and a few shades short of awful at the same time.

And while I realize no owner buys a team with the intention of losing money just to make fans happy, I also recognize that sports teams are one of those businesses where you have to spend money to make money. Carl Linder never really understood this, always falling into that no-mans-land of not spending enough to be competitive (and not spending in the right places) but spending too much for just losing (leading to the big sell-off a few seasons back).

There needs to be an attitude change in the Reds front office: win, and money will come.

OldRightHander
11-03-2005, 09:54 AM
(figuratively speaking....I'm an agnostic ;) )

But at least you're not a dyslexic agnostic insomniac, sitting up all night wondering about the existence of Dog.

MWM
11-03-2005, 09:56 AM
I don't believe in dogs either. :)

Yachtzee
11-03-2005, 09:56 AM
There needs to be an attitude change in the Reds front office: win, and money will come.

Of course, one could also say: spend money wisely, and winning will come.

Roy Tucker
11-03-2005, 10:16 AM
But at least you're not a dyslexic agnostic insomniac, sitting up all night wondering about the existence of Dog.
An insomniac dyslexic agnostic lay awake all night wondering if there was a Dog.

The next day he mentioned it at the dyslexic's convention and started an argument ....

The dyslexic atheist claimed there was no Dog.

But the dyslexic priest insisted there was a Dog.

"Fine," said the dyslexic philosopher, "but Dog is dead."

"Well," countered a dyslexic fatalist, "it really doesn't matter. Even if there were a Dog, he wouldn't come if you called him!"

"Ah," said the priest, "Dog ex machina!"

M2
11-03-2005, 10:27 AM
all the way to a hint of McCarthyism preventing the Reds from hiring a Theo Epstein type of GM

I happen to know his dad, took three classes with the man in college, kept in touch afterward. Joe McCarthy left a big scar on that family. I know for a fact, because I've heard him say it out loud, that Theo's father gets real uneasy around conservatives. Doesn't trust them, doesn't like them.

I have no idea how much of that filtered down to his son, but Theo's twin brother wears his liberality on his sleeve in town (most people do, it's a liberal town) and he brings Theo in on some of his projects. We also know for a fact that Theo's willing to be picky. He just walked away from his dream job because he didn't like the associated atmospherics.

So I don't think it's much of a stretch to assert that given his family's actual history with McCarthyism and his father's stated distaste for conservativism and Theo's demonstrated caution in picking his job that it would be highly unlikely the new Reds ownership would stand much of a chance in landing the guy. Even if they gave him everything he wanted, he might balk simply because Cincinnati isn't his kind of town.

So do I think Castellini's conservativism is going to drive away good GM candidates? No, not at all. Do I think it would be a specific problem with Theo Epstein? Hell yes.

remdog
11-03-2005, 10:34 AM
Do I think it would be a specific problem with Theo Epstein? Hell yes.

Then that's Theo's problem, not one that should be layed at the feet of someone else when there may be no validity to the brush they've just been tarred with.

Rem

traderumor
11-03-2005, 10:42 AM
The one thing I see that too much emphasis may be resting is Castellini and Lindner's real estate transaction that became PBS as a smoking gun for status quo. One power broker helping out another power broker with a high profile transaction does not mean that they will be peas in a pod when it comes to owning a MLB franchise. For example, my boss and I share many views and get along famously and he would help me take over this firm one day when he's ready to get out, but that does not mean that if I was handed the keys that I'd drive it the same way because we do differ in management styles. Likewise, I think that allows Castellini the benefit of the doubt at this point, especially since he has a track record of ownership in successful franchises.

M2
11-03-2005, 10:59 AM
Then that's Theo's problem, not one that should be layed at the feet of someone else when there may be no validity to the brush they've just been tarred with.

No duh. Could I have been more specific that it would be a poor fit due to THEO'S background more than anything else?

OldRightHander
11-03-2005, 11:13 AM
Heck, think we can convince them to just hire WOY as the GM? We all know he'd be better than DanO and he could give us all the inside scoop on trades. I wonder what his thank you speech would be like though. Hmm...

remdog
11-03-2005, 11:16 AM
No duh. Could I have been more specific that it would be a poor fit due to THEO'S background more than anything else?

You could have been more responsible than bringing it up in the first place and implying that these new owners are 'threatening' people even if the perception is on the beholder, in this case.

Rem

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 11:16 AM
I don't believe in dogs either. :)The question remains: Can one believe in dogs...yet still believe that they cannot look up?

http://www.re-run.com/img/shaun-of-the-dead-thumb.jpg

M2
11-03-2005, 11:19 AM
You could have been more responsible than bringing it up in the first place and implying that these new owners are 'threatening' people even if the perception is on the beholder, in this case.

That's your misreading of what I wrote. Can't do anything about that. I didn't imply a damn thing. Theo comes from a family scarred by McCarthyism, conservative owners in Cincinnati likely isn't his cup of tea. Kind of a germane point to make when discussing the likelihood of getting him to take a job with the Reds.

Shrug

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 11:22 AM
I see that my Shaun reference did nothing to steer the thread back towards to the real topic here: Dogs.

Easy with the pol undercurrents guys, Big Brother is watching and this thread is too good to be slammed shut. ;)

remdog
11-03-2005, 11:23 AM
We should all reserve judgment on this. I'm probably over-reacting here becaue I had hopes for the Broadway guys. And I'm a marketing guy myself, so I'm predisposed to want that expertise oozing from the ownership group. The Castellin companies are very successful companies, but marketing is not what they do well.

You call yourself a marketing guy yet you seem to ignore that marketing is a multi-facted business dynamic and, just because it isn't directed toward you personally, doesn't mean it's ineffective or non-exisitant.

If you really are a student of marketing you know that there are many shapes, forms and channels of marketing. Just because Castellini Bros. sell fruits and vegatables doesn't mean they aren't marketing their product. It may mean that they are marketing their prouct to someone other than you directly and, based upon their apparent success, they are doing it very well.

Rem

MWM
11-03-2005, 11:29 AM
I'm aware of all the facets of marketing. But plenty of companies are successful without being very good at marketing or even needing to be very good at marketing. The Castellini core competence is manufacturing and distribution. They do that very well and that's why they make money. It's a good business model for the businesses they're in. But they aren't a marketing company and do very little of it. They don't need to. They will need to as owners of the Reds, something I'm sure they're very aware of. I was only suggesting that my preference would have have been an ownership group who came with a track record of being great marketers. That doesn't mean I think Castellini is incapable of it.

TeamBoone
11-03-2005, 11:30 AM
On the local news last night, they said the Castellani Brothers are one of the leading fruit/vegetable distributors in the nation... sounds like they've learned how to market their products. And with their baseball history, I'm hoping they've learned a thing or two (or ten) about marketing a baseball team.

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 11:37 AM
Not for nuthin'...but there is a distinct difference between "Marketing" a product and taking advantage of obvious and efficient channels of distribution with said product. Just sayin'

paintmered
11-03-2005, 11:38 AM
Big Brother is watching

....and paint is his name. :cool:

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 11:40 AM
....and paint is his name. :cool::notworthy :pray: :notworthy :pray: :notworthy :pray:

paintmered
11-03-2005, 11:41 AM
:notworthy :pray: :notworthy :pray: :notworthy :pray:

:laugh:


Now stand aside, simple peasant folk. :D

remdog
11-03-2005, 12:30 PM
Not for nuthin'...but there is a distinct difference between "Marketing" a product and taking advantage of obvious and efficient channels of distribution with said product. Just sayin'

And there is the knowledge that a channel of distribution is the 'marketing' of your goods. Just like the history or location of the Cincinnati Reds is part of their marketing. In a sense, everything is marketing.

Rem

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 12:47 PM
And there is the knowledge that a channel of distribution is the 'marketing' of your goods. Just like the history or location of the Cincinnati Reds is part of their marketing. In a sense, everything is marketing.

RemHate to split hairs, here....but any Marketing plan requires the ability to identify, evaluate and select the appropriate channel of distribution for your specific product. Thus, it is merely defined as a subset component of the overall Marketing strategy. Simply having "knowledge of a channel" does not imply anything about the inherent overall Marketing strategy. They are not synonymous terms at all.

smith288
11-03-2005, 01:06 PM
That's your misreading of what I wrote. Can't do anything about that. I didn't imply a damn thing. Theo comes from a family scarred by McCarthyism, conservative owners in Cincinnati likely isn't his cup of tea. Kind of a germane point to make when discussing the likelihood of getting him to take a job with the Reds.

Shrug
So what you are saying is Theo is a red commie by extension of his relatives? Im calling Homeland Security... ;)

SteelSD
11-03-2005, 01:20 PM
I would suspect that 86-year old Carl Lindner has about a thousand other higher priorities than worrying about whether DanO gets another season as the Reds GM.

You are, of course, correct.

That being said, 86-year old guys in the mold of Lindner tend to be worried about how they'll be remembered. I don't discount the concept that image considerations do pop up in a deal like this one.

Regardless of the fact that Lindner put together a bad product, it was still "his" product and one he was trying to make better very recently (he didn't make it better but that's beside the point). It's very possible that Lindner may perceive that any immediate changes made to the highest level of "his" team by new ownership may reflect badly on him. Replacing Allen is an easy spin if he has no contract for 2006 and it's reasonable for anyone in ownership to understand that a new owner may just want their own money guy right away.

But O'Brien was Lindner's call and he was the guy who dazzled Lindner with a long-term "plan" of putting together a winning franchise- something Linder could be remembered for. Now, because Lindner is still around, Castellini and Co. could replace O'Brien immediately and spin the move as being part Lindner's idea. That would allow Linder to save face, as would allowing O'Brien to enter his last contractual season.

Maybe Lindner doesn't at all care about whether or not new ownership would come in and completely gut the organization he put together at it's highest levels. But it's also possible that Lindner would perceive that to be an indictment of his ability to make business decisions and, thus, such an act would reflect badly on him and his legacy.

Again, I don't have the first clue as to how the bids and negotiations actually went down. But we have seen evidence that Lindner is very keen to how he's perceived. Yes, Dan O'Brien could be summarily dumped the moment this deal is closed and it wouldn't surprise me. But it also wouldn't be shocked to see him enter the 2006 season as the team's General Manager even if John Allen's contract isn't renewed.

M2
11-03-2005, 01:31 PM
So what you are saying is Theo is a red commie by extension of his relatives? Im calling Homeland Security... ;)

I'm sure they're already monitoring him and everyone else who lives in or hails from Brookline, Mass. Yeah, and that includes Conan O'Brien.

Honestly, my only point with this was that he's most likely not a Cincinnati guy. Doesn't seem that controversial to me. There's millions of people who aren't wired for New York City too.

M2
11-03-2005, 01:35 PM
Steel, hopefully someone sells Carl Lindner on the notion that his legacy needs to be that he righted the financial ship from the Marge era and then had the good sense to let some folks with better baseball acumen take over.

He'll never be remembered as a baseball savvy guy, but he can be remembered as a man who came to understand his limitations and laudably put the team in front of his ego.

RFS62
11-03-2005, 01:39 PM
Steel, hopefully someone sells Carl Lindner on the notion that his legacy needs to be that he righted the financial ship from the Marge era and then had the good sense to let some folks with better baseball acumen take over.

He'll never be remembered as a baseball savvy guy, but he can be remembered as a man who came to understand his limitations and laudably put the team in front of his ego.



That's exactly the way I see it. I cheered when he took over for Marge. It was the end of many years of embarrassment from my point of view.

But nothing he can do now will change his reputation as a baseball man. That horse has already left the barn, and it ain't coming back. Sacking Allen or O'Brien isn't going to change that, IMO.

I'm glad he took over when he did. I'm glad he's cashing in now. I'll remember his stewardship much more fondly if he just turns it loose and lets the new guy put his stamp on it.

smith288
11-03-2005, 01:43 PM
I'm sure they're already monitoring him and everyone else who lives in or hails from Brookline, Mass. Yeah, and that includes Conan O'Brien.

Honestly, my only point with this was that he's most likely not a Cincinnati guy. Doesn't seem that controversial to me. There's millions of people who aren't wired for New York City too.

I agree...and in all honesty, their politics may be that of incompatability.

Its not uncommon. I have seen it before where relationships are strained by two sides of outspoken differences.

Nothing wrong if the two parties steer clear. If they do hookup, Im sure im with the majority in hoping that those differences are only shown in the "Did you know"s.

SteelSD
11-03-2005, 02:00 PM
Steel, hopefully someone sells Carl Lindner on the notion that his legacy needs to be that he righted the financial ship from the Marge era and then had the good sense to let some folks with better baseball acumen take over.

He'll never be remembered as a baseball savvy guy, but he can be remembered as a man who came to understand his limitations and laudably put the team in front of his ego.

And I have hoped for many years that Carl Lindner would understand this or that. Heck, John Allen tried to get through to him and all Lindner did was listen to the other folks who told him to hire Dan O'Brien and THEN listened to whoever it was who told him to give Dan O'Brien millions of dollars to play with.

Maybe the Eric Milton fiasco was the event that allowed Lindner to finally understand that he shouldn't be running a MLB franchise. Maybe Lindner knew that his Frankenstein should be hunted down and killed but that he realized he hadn't the heart, energy, or baseball savvy to put it down himself. That's certainly possible considering he actually gave up control of the team.

I'm just not sure that Linder wouldn't perceive that folks would still remember him more for the monster he created rather than the good sense it will take to allow for it's destruction.

That's where I kinda' go, "Eh...". You, I, and a great portion of the masses realize that nothing Lindner can do from here on out will allow for us to see him as a better baseball man. But that fact still may not be apparant to Lindner.

And I do agree (completely, entirely) that getting rid of Allen and O'Brien (as a start) immediately would be absolutely (completely, entirely) the best thing for this franchise. I'm just not sold on the idea that this group of incoming owners are the group most likely to do it.

And yes, that leaves me worried.

osuceltic
11-03-2005, 02:07 PM
And I do agree (completely, entirely) that getting rid of Allen and O'Brien (as a start) immediately would be absolutely (completely, entirely) the best thing for this franchise. I'm just not sold on the idea that this group of incoming owners are the group most likely to do it.


Like everyone, I hope they come in and clean house. But I'm not going to damn the new ownership if they don't. There's something to be said for spending a season evaluating how the baseball operation works. It's not how I'd approach it, but I can see why they might decide to do it that way.

The problem with that, of course, is it creates a certain dynamic for the GM and manager. They're suddenly performing for their job -- not for the best interests of the franchise. Maybe they're less likely to pull the trigger on a controversial, but necessary deal. Maybe they're more likely to sell the future for a slightly better present. And maybe they're just not qualified and by giving them another season, you're just giving more time to further screw things up.

Like I said, I'd clean house. But if the new group doesn't, I don't think that in itself is any sort of indictment.

traderumor
11-03-2005, 02:14 PM
And I have hoped for many years that Carl Lindner would understand this or that. Heck, John Allen tried to get through to him and all Lindner did was listen to the other folks who told him to hire Dan O'Brien and THEN listened to whoever it was who told him to give Dan O'Brien millions of dollars to play with.

Maybe the Eric Milton fiasco was the event that allowed Lindner to finally understand that he shouldn't be running a MLB franchise. Maybe Lindner knew that his Frankenstein should be hunted down and killed but that he realized he hadn't the heart, energy, or baseball savvy to put it down himself. That's certainly possible considering he actually gave up control of the team.

I'm just not sure that Linder wouldn't perceive that folks would still remember him more for the monster he created rather than the good sense it will take to allow for it's destruction.

That's where I kinda' go, "Eh...". You, I, and a great portion of the masses realize that nothing Lindner can do from here on out will allow for us to see him as a better baseball man. But that fact still may not be apparant to Lindner.

And I do agree (completely, entirely) that getting rid of Allen and O'Brien (as a start) immediately would be absolutely (completely, entirely) the best thing for this franchise. I'm just not sold on the idea that this group of incoming owners are the group most likely to do it.

And yes, that leaves me worried.


This goes for both of your recent posts, but the parallel between Lindner and Mike Brown is certainly in play here, I think. Mikey was done in this town, now he is a side issue for all but the most bitter, yet he is still involved. Let's hope success on the field translates to the same for Mr. Lindner.

BTW, where's REDREAD? :devil:

SteelSD
11-03-2005, 02:21 PM
Like everyone, I hope they come in and clean house. But I'm not going to damn the new ownership if they don't. There's something to be said for spending a season evaluating how the baseball operation works. It's not how I'd approach it, but I can see why they might decide to do it that way.

The problem with that, of course, is it creates a certain dynamic for the GM and manager. They're suddenly performing for their job -- not for the best interests of the franchise. Maybe they're less likely to pull the trigger on a controversial, but necessary deal. Maybe they're more likely to sell the future for a slightly better present. And maybe they're just not qualified and by giving them another season, you're just giving more time to further screw things up.

I think that's a very reasonable take on the dynamic involved- including a great take on some very real negative considerations with maintaining the status quo (even over the short-term) in this situation..

The only way for ownership to insulate the team from some of those potential associated negatives is to throttle the GM's ability to do anything at all; which means a lost 2006 season.

If we see Dan O'Brien making trade one while this deal goes down, I will take that as a sign he's staying considering the situation.


Like I said, I'd clean house. But if the new group doesn't, I don't think that in itself is any sort of indictment.

I think that depends on...

1. Whether or not O'Brien is allowed to freely complete transactions while the new ownership group is in evaluation phase.
2. What those transactions are.

traderumor
11-03-2005, 02:25 PM
If we see Dan O'Brien making trade one while this deal goes down, I will take that as a sign he's staying considering the situation.



I think that depends on...

1. Whether or not O'Brien is allowed to freely complete transactions while the new ownership group is in evaluation phase.
2. What those transactions are.Unless O'Brien is only the face of the transaction because an offer is on the table that the new group wants to get in on and doesn't want to assume it will still be there when they get their regime in place.

SteelSD
11-03-2005, 02:35 PM
Unless O'Brien is only the face of the transaction because an offer is on the table that the new group wants to get in on and doesn't want to assume it will still be there when they get their regime in place.

It's amazing how much we can twist this plot, ain't it?

I swear, there's a fiction novel in this thread somewhere.:)

And yeah, you're right. That could happen. But that doesn't have to mean that O'Brien is on his way out. Instead, it could mean that they're removing MLB player personnel decisions from O'Brien while allowing him to remain in place as a de facto scouting/development guy (which is what he sold Lindner on in the first place) during an evaluation period.

See, I can twist it even more!

REDREAD
11-03-2005, 02:43 PM
This BTW, where's REDREAD? :devil:

I've been way too busy, but I'm absolutely thrilled that Lindner is on the way out. If the new owners fire John Allen, I'll be extremely pleased. Then we have hope. I'd even be willing to sit through another year of DanO if Allen gets the ax.

Thank God the Lindner/Allen era is hopefully coming to an end. They've run this franchise into the ground. It can't get that much worse.

paulrichjr
11-03-2005, 02:45 PM
I've been way too busy, but I'm absolutely thrilled that Lindner is on the way out. If the new owners fire John Allen, I'll be extremely pleased. Then we have hope. I'd even be willing to sit through another year of DanO if Allen gets the ax.

Thank God the Lindner/Allen era is hopefully coming to an end. They've run this franchise into the ground. It can't get that much worse.


Sums my thoughts up totally. I have forever thought that Allen is the reason this thing has gone so bad.

Aronchis
11-03-2005, 02:49 PM
Sums my thoughts up totally. I have forever thought that Allen is the reason this thing has gone so bad.

But Allen was Allen in 99 to. The problem is the GMing of the Reds has fallen to record lows. The 99-00 seasons were fluke and the 97-98 seasons were reality of the Bowden "rebuilding" job to overwhelmed O'brien.

John Allen is hardly the problem but the Ownership structure as a whole and Marge than Lindner specifically.

Firing Allen does little for me, because he has no power. It is removing the operations control from Lindner that is key and giving those keys to somebody that can find a quality GM, something the Reds badly need and haven't had in years.

luvdozer
11-03-2005, 02:54 PM
Forgive me if I missed this in the articles... A question that I'd like to ask is whether Lindner took the highest bid. If the Rick Steiner Group (the Broadway guys) put in a higher bid, then that would worry me for reasons too numerous to name here.

The guys who bought the Red Sox did NOT put in the highest bid, but the Harrington's took it because Selig was confident that the Henry/Werner group would "play ball." Fortunately for Boston, that turned out well.

I'm reserving judgment, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Any more dirt on Castellini (MWM's was helpful) would be nice.


I could be completely wrong on all of this, but I dont believe anyone (outside of the parties) would necessarily know whether or not Lindner took the highest bid.

The reason the Harrington bid played out as a fiasco was that the seller was the Jean Yawkey Trust - a charitable trust created by the estate of the late Jean Yawkey. Her will stated that the Red Sox had to be sold within a certain period of time and all proceeds had to go to the trust. In Massachusetts, charities (including charitable trusts) are regulated by the Attorney General. He has broad powers to make sure that they handle the money wisely and give away a certain and dont waste lots of money on staff (I'm simplifying the regs here). This oversight by the AG is the price that charities pay for not have to pay any taxes.

I dont remember the exact dollar figures, but when it became public that Werner\Henry\Luchino actually had a lower bid than Harrington, the AG stepped in because that necessarily means less money to the Yawkey trust. He has the power to prevent a trust from shortchanging itself. In the end, there was some sort of settlement that I dont remember.

The important point is that, if the seller had been Jean Yawkey - rather than the Jean Yawkey charitable trust - and Harrington went public claiming he had a higher bid, I think Yawkey could have told him to go pound sand and no one could have done anything about it.

MLB could have turned down the deal, but MLB isnt really about maximizing the sale price as much as it is about approving membership in the boys club...oops, did I say that out loud?

ochre
11-03-2005, 03:06 PM
Rereading the Bench thread. His statement about rebuilding the farm system, combined with the 'reputation' O'Brien has attempted to foist upon us as a 'rebuilder through the farm system' seems to be bad mojo.

I'm all for a clean break. Having Lindner hang around, as the person who bought the "long term plan" of O'Brien, or whatever the binders represented, scares me. Marvin Lewis didn't bring Labeau back as the D-Coordinator, or call Coslet up to run the offense. Lets start with a clean slate.

Chip R
11-03-2005, 03:07 PM
John Allen is hardly the problem but the Ownership structure as a whole and Marge than Lindner specifically.

Firing Allen does little for me, because he has no power.

That is true. I don't think firing him is absolutely necessary. However he should not be the public face of this franchise. If the new owners want to give him a raise and a title of executive vice president or consultant to the CEO or some title that's fine with me. As long as he's not operating the franchise. His strengths are not in public relations. Whenever we see his face in public it usually means bad news. He is seen right now as Smithers to Lindner's Burns. John Allen is associated with the failure of this franchise. It's not really his fault but keeping him on just give people the perception that nothing has changed except the names in the owner's box.

Matt700wlw
11-03-2005, 03:07 PM
I'll reserve judgement on the new ownership. If they don't immediately fire DanO then I will remain skeptical.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the transitory year so owership can evalute everybody.

Aronchis
11-03-2005, 03:11 PM
That is true. I don't think firing him is absolutely necessary. However he should not be the public face of this franchise. If the new owners want to give him a raise and a title of executive vice president or consultant to the CEO or some title that's fine with me. As long as he's not operating the franchise. His strengths are not in public relations. Whenever we see his face in public it usually means bad news. He is seen right now as Smithers to Lindner's Burns. John Allen is associated with the failure of this franchise. It's not really his fault but keeping him on just give people the perception that nothing has changed except the names in the owner's box.

The reason Allen wouldn't stay in the same position inside the franchise, is because that job(middle man) won't exist anymore. I would figure Castellini would hire somebody to run the Operations side while he keeps out of it. Allen could stay inside the organization in some other manner however, but that is not meaningfull when talking about operations. Allen for the most part, is already gone from my view.

Blimpie
11-03-2005, 03:12 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the transitory year so owership can evalute everybody.(sniff, sniff) Matt...that had better be speculation on your part. Okay, you are scaring me, Matt. Matt? Answer me!!! Matt? :runawaycr

Chip R
11-03-2005, 03:20 PM
The reason Allen wouldn't stay in the same position inside the franchise, is because that job(middle man) won't exist anymore. I would figure Castellini would hire somebody to run the Operations side while he keeps out of it. Allen could stay inside the organization in some other manner however, but that is not meaningfull when talking about operations. Allen for the most part, is already gone from my view.

Anyone Castellini hires to run the day to day operations is a middle man by definition. Some have more power than others. Even Steinbrenner has a middle man to run the Yankees.

KronoRed
11-03-2005, 03:21 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the transitory year so owership can evalute everybody.
Look at the last 5 years, no evaluation needed.

Fire some people.

Aronchis
11-03-2005, 03:25 PM
Anyone Castellini hires to run the day to day operations is a middle man by definition. Some have more power than others. Even Steinbrenner has a middle man to run the Yankees.

True, but they do set the Franchise's direction such as GM for example. Allen couldn't even do that. The first person Castellini should hire is this individual, before the GM which that person would hire.

RFS62
11-03-2005, 03:37 PM
Sweet sassy molassy!!!!

So, we need another YEAR to evaluate DanO's last two years?!?!?!

Give me a break.

Clean house.

Chip R
11-03-2005, 03:40 PM
True, but they do set the Franchise's direction such as GM for example. Allen couldn't even do that. The first person Castellini should hire is this individual, before the GM which that person would hire.

Oh, absolutely. But the mandate to set the direction comes from the owner(s) or the owner(s) have to sign off on what that person believes the direction the franchise should be. If they hire some new dude to run things and he gets a GM and gives him a mandate to start spending wildly on free agents, the new owners may have a problem with that since it's their money he's spending.

M2
11-03-2005, 03:43 PM
Sweet sassy molassy!!!!

So, we need another YEAR to evaluate DanO's last two years?!?!?!

Give me a break.

Clean house.

Don't forget to run your post-evaluation findings through focus groups for a year after that.

RFS62
11-03-2005, 03:45 PM
Don't forget to run your post-evaluation findings through focus groups for a year after that.



You know, taking a year to evaluate would be like being in a fishing boat that's taking on water and drilling a hole in the floor to let the water out.

M2
11-03-2005, 03:46 PM
You know, taking a year to evaluate would be like being in a fishing boat that's taking on water and drilling a hole in the floor to let the water out.

It would be like catching your right hand on fire and then sticking in your left to test whether the fire's hot or if it's just your one hand.

RFS62
11-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Mine was better.


:p:

KronoRed
11-03-2005, 03:53 PM
I vote for RFS

I also vote he be named COO :D

M2
11-03-2005, 03:53 PM
Mine was better.


:p:

I was just trying to keep the chain going. I figured we could get a few dozen homespun gems in there.

For instance - It's like picking your pooh up out of the toilet to make sure it smells bad.

MWM
11-03-2005, 03:58 PM
:barf: :barf: :barf:

Chip R
11-03-2005, 04:05 PM
I was just trying to keep the chain going. I figured we could get a few dozen homespun gems in there.

For instance - It's like picking your pooh up out of the toilet to make sure it smells bad.


http://www.barkingmoose.com/archives/flickstuck.jpg

westofyou
11-03-2005, 04:21 PM
If this was posted sorry, but it it was on Marc's blog

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/


With four stories already in the hopper tonight, I'm not going to say too much about the sale. However, I do think those expecting an immediate housecleaning will be disappointed. Just because this thing was announced today doesn't mean it's anywhere near being done. All indications are that they haven't even determined exactly which shares will be sold and who will come away with what, so that remains to be worked out. I've heard this has been an extremely complicated process from the beginning, so that would follow.

The bottom line with all of that is that the new owners can't make any changes until they're officially the new owners, and that probably won't happen until at least sometime in December. If it happens that quickly, it will only be because MLB knows what it's getting with these guys because they're already involved with St. Louis. These situations usually take six months or so to play out. This one won't take that long, but I have a hard time looking at the timetable and seeing new ownership in place before the vast majority of the offseason moves need to be made. Last year, the Reds were basically done by Christmas, with the Aurilia signing the exception.

There's no doubt changes will be made at the highest levels of the organization, but it may take a while to get to that point.

Unassisted
11-03-2005, 04:27 PM
The last sentence of Marc's blog entry is much more encouraging than the second one.

REDREAD
11-03-2005, 05:18 PM
But Allen was Allen in 99 to. .

The 1999 team is a direct result of trading veterans from the Marge era to get Cameron, Casey, Graves, Neagle, Vaughn, Tucker, and Hammonds.

Bowden also struck gold with Harnish, and was able to get Guzman.

Also, a few homegrown products sprinkled in as well.

Bowden was able to build a great team in 1999, DESPITE Allen.

What was Allen's contribution to 1999? Almost killing the Guzman deal over 900k. Fortunately, Bowden was able to overcome that.

RFS62
11-03-2005, 05:20 PM
There's no doubt changes will be made at the highest levels of the organization, but it may take a while to get to that point.


I don't think anyone expects it any faster than that. We all know the deal has to be done before any moves are made.

And I'm fine with that. But not a year to evaluate.

REDREAD
11-03-2005, 05:22 PM
.

Firing Allen does little for me, because he has no power. .

Allen has more say in the day to day running of the Reds than anyone, even Lindner.

Allen is the one that made us punt the Sowers pick, made us give deferred money to sign Esponisa and Sardinha, said Howington was a waste of money when he was still the Reds best prospect (pre-injury). He's consistently forced the Reds to take "signablity" picks in the draft.

He's also the one that wanted to cut salary in 2003 before the season even started, despite promising the fans that a new stadium would generate enough money to fuel a contender.

Allen is a con man and a liar and incompetent.

How can you not hold the COO accountable for the mess that happened under his watch? Give Allen some credit. He's not a yes man that simply parrots Lindner's wishes (if Lindner was that hands-on, there'd be no need for Allen).

REDREAD
11-03-2005, 05:26 PM
If the new owners want to give him a raise and a title of executive vice president or consultant to the CEO or some title that's fine with me. .

What has Allen done to warrant keeping his job?

The guy has been around for 8 years (I think) and all he can be given credit for is retireing a few jerseys and temporarily bringing back RedsFest.

He's a continual embarrassment. He tried to reneg on the promise the Reds made to build a Hall of Fame museum because it wasn't a "revenue generator".

The guy is poison. I'll be mad if he's retained in any capacity. I don't even want him to have his old job of wrapping hot dogs.

KronoRed
11-03-2005, 05:34 PM
I doubt they will fire a long time soldier like him RR, our best hope is they "promote" him out of having any real power.

Chip R
11-03-2005, 05:44 PM
What has Allen done to warrant keeping his job?


I didn't say he should keep his current job. Quite the opposite. If they want to move him to some position where he doesn't do any PR or run the day to day operations of the franchise, it's no skin off my nose. If he didn't want to accept that position, I'd tell him to hit the bricks.

johngalt
11-03-2005, 08:40 PM
The guy has been around for 8 years (I think) and all he can be given credit for is retireing a few jerseys and temporarily bringing back RedsFest.

I would wager a good portion of money that if it wasn't for John Allen, there would be no Redsfest, there would have been no jersey retirements to honor some of this team's legends, there would be no Hall of Fame inductees, there would be no Hall of Fame building to honor this team's great history and there would have been no magical season in '99 because he was the person who shepherded the organization between Marge and Lindner.

I think people forget some of the things he contributed to the organization simply because the team hasn't performed on the field.

MWM
11-03-2005, 08:48 PM
I'm sure he's done some good things, john. But I'm a little skeptical that none of the things you mentioned would have happened without John Allen. It's not like without him the job would have been vacant. Someone would have been in charge and I don't think things like jersey retirements and a Reds HOF are exactly flashes of brilliance. I think they're a lot closer to low hanging fruit than they are any kind of originality.

cincinnati chili
11-03-2005, 10:17 PM
I could be completely wrong on all of this, but I dont believe anyone (outside of the parties) would necessarily know whether or not Lindner took the highest bid.

The reason the Harrington bid played out as a fiasco was that the seller was the Jean Yawkey Trust - a charitable trust created by the estate of the late Jean Yawkey. Her will stated that the Red Sox had to be sold within a certain period of time and all proceeds had to go to the trust. In Massachusetts, charities (including charitable trusts) are regulated by the Attorney General. He has broad powers to make sure that they handle the money wisely and give away a certain and dont waste lots of money on staff (I'm simplifying the regs here). This oversight by the AG is the price that charities pay for not have to pay any taxes.

I dont remember the exact dollar figures, but when it became public that Werner\Henry\Luchino actually had a lower bid than Harrington, the AG stepped in because that necessarily means less money to the Yawkey trust. He has the power to prevent a trust from shortchanging itself. In the end, there was some sort of settlement that I dont remember.

The important point is that, if the seller had been Jean Yawkey - rather than the Jean Yawkey charitable trust - and Harrington went public claiming he had a higher bid, I think Yawkey could have told him to go pound sand and no one could have done anything about it.

MLB could have turned down the deal, but MLB isnt really about maximizing the sale price as much as it is about approving membership in the boys club...oops, did I say that out loud?

Thanks for the clarification.

Blimpie
11-04-2005, 10:40 AM
I was just trying to keep the chain going. I figured we could get a few dozen homespun gems in there.

For instance - It's like picking your pooh up out of the toilet to make sure it smells bad."Ugh, smell like dog poop...feel like dog poop...taste like dog poop...must be dog poop!

Whew. Good thing we no step in it...."

paulrichjr
11-04-2005, 11:55 PM
Somewhere I read (maybe this thread but not sure) that the Castellini group just came into the picture the last 30 days or so. Now personally I find that hard to believe. Does anyone else remember talk that the "potential" new owners nixed the Griffey trade? Personally that didn't make sense to me before because I couln't see how they would know who the new owners were to scuttle a deal. Now after reading the links with Lindner and Castellini, I can see a possibility of Carl calling him up and asking permission to make the trade. Anyone have an opinion there?

WVRedsFan
11-05-2005, 12:11 AM
Somewhere I read (maybe this thread but not sure) that the Castellini group just came into the picture the last 30 days or so. Now personally I find that hard to believe. Does anyone else remember talk that the "potential" new owners nixed the Griffey trade? Personally that didn't make sense to me before because I couln't see how they would know who the new owners were to scuttle a deal. Now after reading the links with Lindner and Castellini, I can see a possibility of Carl calling him up and asking permission to make the trade. Anyone have an opinion there?

Now that I've had time to digest this whole thing, I think you're probably right. Needless to say, but it answers a lot of questions. Since no one had a clew that Castellini was involved and that he was Carl's adopted son, maybe this was the plan all along and they just went through the motions on bids so as to make it legitimate? That explains the no-trade of Griffey, the retaining of O'Brien (briefly), the one year deal for Narron and the non-offer to John Allen.

And then again, I may be all wet on this.

wheels
11-05-2005, 12:38 AM
I just think that Carl knew that "someone" would be buying the club, and that Griffey would make them more attractive as a franchise for sale.

Maybe the Castellini's were foremost in Carl's mind, but alot could have happened between then and now.

The most important thing to me is what will happen in the near future.

WVRedsFan
11-05-2005, 01:24 AM
I just think that Carl knew that "someone" would be buying the club, and that Griffey would make them more attractive as a franchise for sale.

Maybe the Castellini's were foremost in Carl's mind, but alot could have happened between then and now.

The most important thing to me is what will happen in the near future.

Well, to me, it sounds like too much of a coincidence that the club landed in Castellini's hands with the history there. Matters not, though and I agree with your premise that the future is the key.

Sometimes it takes a great baseball mind to sort this all out, something that is in short supply around the Reds. Leaving DanO in charge would be the first sign that we have idiots in the house. I fear what might happen. Tell Danny Boy that we need pitching might result in what we saw in 1964. Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas. Superstar hitter for potential superstar pitcher. Robinson was the Orioles' and the league's MVP in 1965. Pappas sucked. Big time. To prove history does repeat itself, the Reds needed pitching in 1965 ( the big three of Jay, Purkey and O'Toole had run its course), so they sacrificed Frankie for Milton Pappas. In 2004, the Reds needed pitching (because they had none) and they signed Eric Milton, who sucked. Scary, huh?

I can see a confident O'Brien, eager to prove himself, trading Adam Dunn for a similar Milton clone (pick whichever one you want). Real Scary.

If the Castellini group is serious about this club, they'll cut DanO off at the knees, send John Allen on his way, and put the coaching staff and field management on notice.

As confident was I was two days ago, I am now in a funk about this whole thing. Yes, the change is good, but how good? We'll know by the first of the month.

cincinnati chili
11-05-2005, 09:12 AM
I have nothing substantive to add to this discussion at the moment, except I know a guy who grew up around the corner from the Castellini's. The kids in this hood called him Mr. "Cast-a-weeny."

ochre
01-22-2009, 01:18 PM
Everyone on this board gets a case of Falls City Beer (bottles baby) if Allen and DanO actually get the axe.

Something tells me my wallet stays in my pocket.
Did John Allen get fired? I know, technically, he resigned, but I think it was a sort of "self-axe".

No time line on the wager either, so...

RedEye
01-22-2009, 01:23 PM
Refreshing to see this thread again. Or not.

Oh, how hope springs eternal in Redsland...

Unassisted
01-22-2009, 01:48 PM
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Are we better off now than we were 38 months ago?

That's all I've got.

marcshoe
01-22-2009, 03:24 PM
I have nothing substantive to add to this discussion at the moment, except I know a guy who grew up around the corner from the Castellini's. The kids in this hood called him Mr. "Cast-a-weeny."

Somehow this post seems more relevant now.

wheels
01-23-2009, 04:03 PM
I think I'm gonna cry.