PDA

View Full Version : Thanks Mr. Lindner



RFS62
01-19-2006, 08:13 PM
Today the ownership of the Reds changed hands.

Thanks, Mr. Lindner. I know you've been under near constant attack since you took the reins from Marge. Thanks for your stewardship.

Thanks for recognizing that this was not your game. Thanks for getting out. That's not a slam, it's a compliment. A good man knows his limitations.

I appreciate that you gave us respectability after years of embarrassment under Marge's ownership. I appreciate not having to cringe every time I meet someone who laughs about Shotzie taking a dump on the infield.

I appreciate that you did the best you could, and I truly believe that you did. And I appreciate that you understand that this isn't your strength, and that you're turning it over to a new man.

It doesn't bother me that you made money and tax breaks. That's ok. This is America, you weren't supposed to take a loss.

I'm glad you aren't holding on and passing ownership down to your relatives. I think you believe that you've found the right man for the job.

Thank you, Mr. Lindner. You realized that you were a steward, a transitional owner. You got rid of Marge and Bowden, and I appreciate that. You hired DanO. Now it's time for you to go, as I'm sure you know how well that's worked out.

I wish you nothing but happiness for the rest of your life, and I hope it's a long one. You do a lot of good through your various causes, and you should be admired.

Thanks for saving the franchise from ongoing humiliation, and thanks for realizing you are simply not a baseball man and getting out.

In a few years, history will forget the five years of historically bad baseball and remember you for all your fine public works.

That's really how it should be.

RedFanAlways1966
01-19-2006, 08:28 PM
Nicely said, '62. :clap:

Caseyfan21
01-19-2006, 08:37 PM
Well said.

Being a younger fan, I really only know Mr. Lindner from his ownership of the team. I really hope his tenure as owner of the Reds will not tarnish his overall legacy in Cincinnati, especially with younger fans like me. He's a great man that gives willingly to many causes. I think he wanted to win just as badly as the rest of us but things didn't work out and he's a smart enough man to realize it so he moved on.

pedro
01-19-2006, 08:37 PM
Good post RFS.

remdog
01-19-2006, 09:30 PM
Good post, good perspective.

Rem

KronoRed
01-19-2006, 09:33 PM
Agreed.

gonelong
01-19-2006, 10:29 PM
Thanks for recognizing that this was not your game. Thanks for getting out. That's not a slam, it's a compliment. A good man knows his limitations.

I don't get that same vibe out of all this.



I appreciate that you gave us respectability after years of embarrassment under Marge's ownership. I appreciate not having to cringe every time I meet someone who laughs about Shotzie taking a dump on the infield.


I don't see alot of respect for the Reds at this point, what I see is apathy. I don't give credit to people for not having a dog poop on the field.


I appreciate that you did the best you could, and I truly believe that you did. And I appreciate that you understand that this isn't your strength, and that you're turning it over to a new man.

Well, I do think he did the best he could, and I think he likely did it for, in his mind, out of a love for Cincinnati the city.


It doesn't bother me that you made money and tax breaks. That's ok. This is America, you weren't supposed to take a loss.

I don't mind the man making a profit.


I'm glad you aren't holding on and passing ownership down to your relatives. I think you believe that you've found the right man for the job.

Thats not all the comforting a thought to me given his track record.


Thank you, Mr. Lindner. You realized that you were a steward, a transitional owner. You got rid of Marge and Bowden, and I appreciate that. You hired DanO. Now it's time for you to go, as I'm sure you know how well that's worked out.

Marge was forced out by MLB, not Lindner.


I wish you nothing but happiness for the rest of your life, and I hope it's a long one. You do a lot of good through your various causes, and you should be admired.

The man has a nice list of positive things he has done over the years that he deservers to be recognized for.


Thanks for saving the franchise from ongoing humiliation, and thanks for realizing you are simply not a baseball man and getting out.

I'll take 94,95,96,97,98,99 over 00,01,02,03,04,05.


In a few years, history will forget the five years of historically bad baseball and remember you for all your fine public works.

That's really how it should be.

Agreed.

Dude - I need to have you on retainer to write my eulogy. ;)

GL

RFS62
01-19-2006, 10:32 PM
Dude - I need to have you on retainer to write my eulogy. ;)

GL


I'm reasonably priced.

gonelong
01-19-2006, 10:38 PM
I'm reasonably priced.

Well, you should raise your rates!

Nice thought on the original post ... the man probably caught more flak than he deserved over the last few years.

GL

RFS62
01-19-2006, 10:43 PM
I don't give credit to people for not having a dog poop on the field.


GL


I give a lot of credit for that. And no covers of SI like Marge's infamous "Red Menace". And respectability from a business point of view. And no more "what do we need scouts for... all they do is watch ballgames."

He didn't know a damn thing about baseball. He trusted Bowden over the protests of Allen on signing Junior. He made plenty of mistakes, like the Larkin extension and going for DanO over Krivsky. But he also pumped his own money into the franchise with the ticket vouchers.

He'll be an astrisk in the big picture of Reds owners. A transitional owner. A stepping stone from rubbing dog hair on the players to what I hope will be the restoration of a proud franchise under Castellini.

Maybe not, but I have hope. And I appreciate the man for the things he's accomplished.

westofyou
01-19-2006, 11:43 PM
He didn't know a damn thing about baseball.

That's gravestone stuff right there.

The man accomplished alot... some not so kosher, some very cool... but the fact is the aforementioned.

Neither did CBS, that's why George bought the Yankees from them for a pittance.

RFS62
01-19-2006, 11:59 PM
That's gravestone stuff right there.

The man accomplished alot... some not so kosher, some very cool... but the fact is the aforementioned.

Neither did CBS, that's why George bought the Yankees from them for a pittance.



We can only hope we get the same results from Castellini as the Yankees have from George.

I think Lindner's legacy is so far removed from the Reds that we're a blip on the radar. His detractors will point at the Chiquita - Enquirer controversy. His proponents will look at a lifetime of charity and philanthropy.

The Reds.... a minor blip.

It's more important to us than it has been to him, to be sure. And rightfully so.

I think his motives were pure and he was encumbered by a lack of understanding of the business of baseball. Yeah, he made money on the deal, and he got some nice tax breaks. I can live with that.

I'm sure he wishes his tenure had been more productive. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing when he extended Larkin. I'm sure he completely bought in to DanO's presentation and the "rebuilding of the infrastructure" philosophy. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing for the franchise, to build for the future.

It was the right time for him to sell, and he did. He stepped up when he was needed, and now he's stepping down.

His stewardship of the Reds will be a footnote in his legacy, regardless of which side of the ledger you see it on.

Krusty
01-20-2006, 12:33 AM
When Lindner took over control of the club from Marge Schott, this club was in a financial mess. Forbes magazine put out the sports ranking of all sports teams and the Reds were one of the five worst teams in regards to financial status. Lindner came in and turned things around in a business sense and got the Reds on solid financial footing especially with the opening of Great American Ballpark.

M2
01-20-2006, 01:21 AM
Why I'll go a step further, to most people Peter Bailey was the Building and Loan ...

wheels
01-20-2006, 01:21 AM
Yada yada yada....

The guy got to sit there sipping Hudepohl from a can while I had to make do with whatever swill they're serving at that place.

For that, I'm still seething.

BCubb2003
01-20-2006, 01:30 AM
Excellent sentiments, RFS62. It's not easy to fire an owner, but we should at least appreciate that we have the chance to move on. And that he didn't turn into a Carl Pohlad. And that he didn't give the stadium a dorky name. And the Reds were able to go from not hanging retired jerseys to having a world-class hall of fame.

Now the new owner has to get things done on the field.

919191
01-20-2006, 02:06 AM
The opening post on this thread is worthy of an archive.

pedro
01-20-2006, 02:41 AM
Why I'll go a step further, to most people Peter Bailey was the Building and Loan ...


Hey look, mister - we serve hard drinks in here for men who want to get drunk fast, and we don't need any characters around to give the joint "atmosphere". Is that clear, or do I have to slip you my left for a convincer?

RedsBaron
01-20-2006, 06:50 AM
Excellent opening post RFS62. I've glad Lindner has sold the team, but I wish him well. :thumbup:

gonelong
01-20-2006, 08:59 AM
I give a lot of credit for that. And no covers of SI like Marge's infamous "Red Menace". And respectability from a business point of view. And no more "what do we need scouts for... all they do is watch ballgames."

Marge had to go, no doubt, I am too and glad that we ended up with a guy that at least made the off the field news respectable.

Still, no credit for not allowing your dog to poop on the playing surface. :)


He didn't know a damn thing about baseball.

Ok, you have been fired as my eulogy writer. ;)


He trusted Bowden over the protests of Allen on signing Junior. He made plenty of mistakes, like the Larkin extension and going for DanO over Krivsky. But he also pumped his own money into the franchise with the ticket vouchers.

Maybe I missed something, but how are ticket vouchers pumping his own money into the franchise? Did he actually purchase the tickets out of pocket, or did he just print 'em up and hand 'em out?

Don't get me wrong, it was a nice gesture and a good idea, IMO.


He'll be an astrisk in the big picture of Reds owners. A transitional owner. A stepping stone from rubbing dog hair on the players to what I hope will be the restoration of a proud franchise under Castellini.

He'll quickly be forgotten as the Reds owner, and frankly, thats about the best he could hope for at this juncture.

I am a nervous wreck. The next decade or more of Reds baseball comes into power today and I have no idea where we are headed.

GL

Johnny Footstool
01-20-2006, 10:30 AM
Sorry, but I don't see Lindner as "rescuing" the franchise.

He got a financial windfall in the form of GAB in 2003. That and that alone helped get the Reds out of their financial mess.

Now the national media doesn't make fun of the Reds for having an owner who makes racist comments and lets her dog run around on the field. Instead, they make fun of the Reds for their horrendous lack of pitching and five straight seasons of losing baseball. Is that somehow better?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud all the charity work Lindner has done for the city of Cincinnati. But as a baseball owner, he was pretty lousy.

Crash Davis
01-20-2006, 11:35 AM
Sorry, but I don't see Lindner as "rescuing" the franchise.

He got a financial windfall in the form of GAB in 2003. That and that alone helped get the Reds out of their financial mess.

Now the national media doesn't make fun of the Reds for having an owner who makes racist comments and lets her dog run around on the field. Instead, they make fun of the Reds for their horrendous lack of pitching and five straight seasons of losing baseball. Is that somehow better?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud all the charity work Lindner has done for the city of Cincinnati. But as a baseball owner, he was pretty lousy.

That's what I was going to write...practically verbatim.

Certainly there's more to Mr. Lindner than any of us know. i.e. charity work, city projects, etc. I also believe there's more to his Reds ownership than meets the eye. i.e. making sure the stadium was built on the river to protect his interests, getting out (as predicted) as soon as he made money off the new stadium. If you were to study his purchase of the Reds, I think you would find that it was almost purely stadium/real estate driven.

Yes, Marge was embarrassing...at times, unbearably so. Is it better to be ignored than embarrassed?

REDREAD
01-20-2006, 11:47 AM
Carl, I hope you enjoy your large profit at taxpayer expense.
Thanks for letting the farm system sink to new lows. Thanks for letting the idiot John Allen ruin the franchise. Thanks for all the lies. Thanks for all the morons you hired into this organization.

Carl, your legacy will be as one of the most incompetent, tight-fisted owners of all time (Sorry, but signing Milton and Jr does not salvage your reputation).

We'll all get the last laugh when you realize you can't take all that cash with you when this life is over.

westofyou
01-20-2006, 11:49 AM
Carl, your legacy will be as one of the most incompetent, tight-fisted owners of all time In the big history of the game Lindner will never even touch the unsavory, money grubbing monsters that have owned baseball teams over the past 130 years.

Cripes he's not even the worst Reds owner of all time.

M2
01-20-2006, 12:05 PM
In the big history of the game Lindner will never even touch the unsavory, money grubbing monsters that have owned baseball teams over the past 130 years.

Cripes he's not even the worst Reds owner of all time.

Good point. I'll remember Carl as a guy who bought low and sold high. The Reds won't be mentioned much either way when it comes to his personal legacy.

Cyclone792
01-20-2006, 12:10 PM
I'll never forget when he ordered Kullman/Maddox to deal some of our players for cash at the 2003 trading deadline.

Granted, they were able to pry some decent talent from teams with some of those trades and that's more of a reflection on Kullman/Maddox doing an outstanding job, but the fact that Lindner cared about a cash return instead of actual prospects still burns me up (the two Yankee deals were split up because MLB objected to the amount of total cash in the original deal). Then I remember watching Baseball Tonight and seeing Ravech, Gammons, etc. empty out their wallets on the desk and discussing which players they thought they could buy with the cash they had.

It was just flat out embarrassing.

dsmith421
01-20-2006, 01:58 PM
It was just flat out embarrassing.

That's the entire Lindner era in six words. Well put.

15fan
01-20-2006, 02:53 PM
In the big history of the game Lindner will never even touch the unsavory, money grubbing monsters that have owned baseball teams over the past 130 years.

Cripes he's not even the worst Reds owner of all time.

Preach on, brotherman.

Heck, there are several franchises in the Reds' current division that have had anemic, pathetic stretches of history that dwarf the underwhelming results of our favorite team during the rather short Lindner era.

(And think, one of those incompetent boobs was rewarded by being promoted all the way to the top & being put in charge of the entire game...)

M2
01-20-2006, 03:12 PM
incompetent boobs

And when you think about it, boobs have a pretty easy job. Competency should be assumed.

Aronchis
01-20-2006, 03:20 PM
Carl staked his claim to the Bowden plan which appeared to be a good thing when he came into as Operations Chief. I don't doubt Carl knew he wouldn't be long for the Reds, so his fortunes were tied with Bowdens. But Bowden's failings which "smart" fans probably already saw, doomed him and Bowden along with the Limiteds tightened attitude monetarily after the Marge era.

Hence the Reds didn't restore themselves on the field like Carl probably hoped by 2003. Problems were all over the place, which he wasn't willing to fix IMO in his short time, but leave up to the next guy. That ends with the O'brien era which will be nothing more than a footnote.

Cooper
01-20-2006, 03:33 PM
It was the "right" time for him to sell. His 5 year tax break was up, thus profits would go down. He took out a heck of a lot more than he put in...he managed the Reds as purely a business venture. That's not necessarly a bad thing, but that should be his legacy as an owner.

On a side-the last 2 owners we've had infer the team was this close to moving. This creates a good amount of good will from the public. Surely the new guy won't infer this....right?

15fan
01-20-2006, 03:45 PM
It was the "right" time for him to sell. His 5 year tax break was up, thus profits would go down. He took out a heck of a lot more than he put in...

Once again...

Business profits are taxed at roughly 40%.

And that's the way that multi-millionaires get to be multi-millionaires: by paying 40% for their cash.

Or twice what someone would pay by taking a cash advance on a run of the mill credit card.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

15fan
01-20-2006, 03:55 PM
And when you think about it, boobs have a pretty easy job. Competency should be assumed.

Hmmm...

In some contexts, the bigger the boob, the better.

In others, not so much.

Quite the Friday afternoon paradox to ponder.

REDREAD
01-20-2006, 04:39 PM
Once again...

Business profits are taxed at roughly 40%.

And that's the way that multi-millionaires get to be multi-millionaires: by paying 40% for their cash.



Carl more than doubled his money in 5 years, thanks to the generousity of the taxpayers. It was as close to a zero risk investment as could be had.
So, it was smart to cash out.

I don't understand why you'd say he wouldn't cash out a profit just because of taxes. You shouldn't make investment decisions primarily on taxes.
That's like saying we shouldn't have a job, because we have to pay roughly 40% in state, federal, FICA, etc.

Cooper
01-20-2006, 04:43 PM
15Fan: i thought owners got a break their first 5 years of ownership and then when the 5 year period was over they assumed more of a tax burden...is that not correct? My post was only there to point out the issue of timing re: 5 years. I'm quite area that multi-millionaires assume a huge amount of the tax burden. I'm also aware they've become millionaires because they are smart business men who know how to use the tax code to take as much advantage financially as possible (as they should). What's your point?

red-in-la
01-21-2006, 02:22 AM
I guess, as usual, I can't agree.

I love your post '62.....well said and very classy.

But come on.....the city builds Carl a brand new stadium for 30 mill (on his part) and we are supposed to be happy that instead of dog droppings we got teams that smelled up the place worse? I don't think so.

Carl was a bad owner (from almost 3,000 miles away). As woy alluded to, he might have done lots for the city that I didn't see, and thus, he might have been good for the city overall.....but I prefer Marge to him any day.

Sure Marge was a loose cannon, a drunk (it appeared), and a cranky old lady.....but she believed in winning and taking no prisoners. She may have angered the writers by cutting off their perks, and she may have had no clue what scouts did.....but she hired good people and expected nothing less than winning.

Carl had no clue what anybody around baseball did....or does. Carl, thanks I guess....but go back to insurance and bananas. Welcome Mr. Castellini!

westofyou
01-21-2006, 10:42 AM
but she hired good people and expected nothing less than winning.Bullcrap, her start involved cutting the scouting staff and advertising revenue. The woman stole from the team and her partners and the franchise is still reeling from it today.

Do yourself a favor an pick up "Baseball by The Billions learn some of the "real" things about Marge and get past her one year of success.

Falls City Beer
01-21-2006, 01:10 PM
It was just flat out embarrassing.


Lindner's ownership was a nightmare, from beginning to end. That's how I'll remember it.

red-in-la
01-22-2006, 04:33 AM
Bullcrap, her start involved cutting the scouting staff and advertising revenue. The woman stole from the team and her partners and the franchise is still reeling from it today.

Do yourself a favor an pick up "Baseball by The Billions learn some of the "real" things about Marge and get past her one year of success.

Pontificating as usual woy......how do I stand living without these personal moments we share?

I don't think I would call a 1990 World Championship and two wining teams in 1994 and 1995 as her one success. If Carl had managed the same, I would have thought him a great owner be sad to see him go.

The point has been made......in the 90's the rest of baseball might have laughed at Marge......but at least they didn't laugh at the Reds.

And for all of the awful things you say she did, the farm system....sans the scouts....produced well enough to stock some pretty good teams.....and on top of that, Marge went and got the people she wanted when she needed them.

Lindner thought the Reds existed to make him money. Marge thought they existed to win.

GAC
01-22-2006, 05:32 AM
He didn't know a damn thing about baseball. He trusted Bowden over the protests of Allen on signing Junior.

Yep. But I don't recall that he came in saying he did either. And that statement can be said about alot of owners (maybe a majority), including Steinbrenner. It's their ability to be able to hire, place, and entrust.... and in Georgie's case -fire!....those people in the organization that do know the game. And that is where Lindner was in over his head. He was a businessman (which again, alot are). It was stated in an article I read yesterday that summed up Lindner's tenure and approach to the game, and were his own words..... "I'm not here to make money. But I don't want to lose it either."

He placed or trusted people in those FO positions to do a job, but as you already mentioned, he also, at times, intervened, thwarted them, and made them look bad (such as with the Larkin deal).

I believe he really did care about the fans and wanted to do what was right. That is why you saw deals like Griffey, Larkin, Casey. These guys were/all fan favorites. They put butts in the seats, and why people brought their kids to the game. In that sense, his approach, or maybe a better word is "evaluation" of why people come to the games and follow a team was skewered or incomplete. What the fans want more then anything is a winner on that field.

I see where one of Castellini's first moves was to move Allen from the baseball side to the business side of the organization. This may be his "graceful" way of giving Allen the gradual exit out. But then again, it also might be where Allen should have been all along because whether people want to acknowledge it or not, there is that business angle of the game. And Allen, IMO, is a numbers" guy and should be very good at it. His job is (or should be) to simply "count the beans" and report to the ownership group on that status/situation. What they (and the GM) then do with it is then their business.

So we'll see.

But as with Castellini, as it was with Lindner, it is still gonna come down to who you are placing in those FO positions, and who you are trusting to restore it. His "one up" on Lindner is that he, and the Williams', comes from a baseball "rich" family with a tradition/love and knowledge of the game. We'll see how strong their desire is to win. With Lindner, he seemed to have simply purchased the Reds so that an "outside" owner wouldn't. That is really not a solid reason to be buying a franchise IMO. Good intention, but we all know what good intentions can get you. ;)

I wish him well. I always felt the guy has a good heart and wanted to do what was right for the city and fans.

GAC
01-22-2006, 05:36 AM
I'll never forget when he ordered Kullman/Maddox to deal some of our players for cash at the 2003 trading deadline.

Yeah, but in the long run, and when you look at what happened to those players (as well as what they were trying to get money-wise), show me where we screwed up in any of that "fire sale"?

The fire sale didn't bother me one bit. It was who they went out and got to replace those players (especially in the BP). Now that sucked!

GAC
01-22-2006, 05:50 AM
I guess, as usual, I can't agree.

I love your post '62.....well said and very classy.

But come on.....the city builds Carl a brand new stadium for 30 mill (on his part) and we are supposed to be happy that instead of dog droppings we got teams that smelled up the place worse? I don't think so.

Carl was a bad owner (from almost 3,000 miles away). As woy alluded to, he might have done lots for the city that I didn't see, and thus, he might have been good for the city overall.....but I prefer Marge to him any day.

Sure Marge was a loose cannon, a drunk (it appeared), and a cranky old lady.....but she believed in winning and taking no prisoners. She may have angered the writers by cutting off their perks, and she may have had no clue what scouts did.....but she hired good people and expected nothing less than winning.

Carl had no clue what anybody around baseball did....or does. Carl, thanks I guess....but go back to insurance and bananas. Welcome Mr. Castellini!


Marge also was not a baseball person and didn't know squat about the game (except that the ball was round). Yes, she won a WS in '90. Even a stray dog finds a bone every once in awhile. She then, proceeded to run this organization from every angle, business,financial viability, farm system, etc., right into the ground, while being a HUGE embarassment to the team and this city.

At least Lindner did bring back some fiscal sanity to this organization, and was instrumental in rebuilding the "physical" house on the outside with new facilities in GAB and also Louisville and Dayton. Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, that is a start. But again, he, nor his FO staff didn't have the baseball knowledge and know-how to acuire the inner parts that make it a success. That is where they failed.

There is no reason why this organization cannot be consistently a winning, or at least a competitive organization, when I see similar franchises doing the same, such as Oakland, Cleveland, Minnesota, and Florida. It's not simply about spending more and more money. It's having smart people in that FO who can spend it wisely, evaluate talent, and build from there.

With Lindner, Allen, and Dano in place, and IMO, we could have had a 90 Mil payroll and still been losers. Amd some would have been saying "You need to open your pockets and spend more!"

TeamCasey
01-22-2006, 08:17 AM
And when you think about it, boobs have a pretty easy job.

No they don't ....... and they completely screw with your billiards game!

37red
01-22-2006, 09:19 AM
OK, I've read all the same angles over and over LET'S try a new angle. WHO does everyone think was the best owner the REDS. How do they compare?

westofyou
01-22-2006, 10:39 AM
Pontificating as usual woy......how do I stand living without these personal moments we share?Kiss my rear RILA, maybe someday you'll learn something.

Chances aren't looking very good though.

westofyou
01-22-2006, 11:14 AM
OK, I've read all the same angles over and over LET'S try a new angle. WHO does everyone think was the best owner the REDS. How do they compare?

<pontificate>

I'd have to say Crosley, he pulled the team fully into the 20th century and because of "name" in the industry business increased the Reds hold on the region.

The same region Howsam recognized and polished up as the marketing departments crown jewel and the same region Marge ignored and thus has shrunk ever since.

</pontificate>

RFS62
01-22-2006, 11:35 AM
WOY, could you possibly insert a table or two among your pontification?

Aronchis
01-22-2006, 05:15 PM
Marge also was not a baseball person and didn't know squat about the game (except that the ball was round). Yes, she won a WS in '90. Even a stray dog finds a bone every once in awhile. She then, proceeded to run this organization from every angle, business,financial viability, farm system, etc., right into the ground, while being a HUGE embarassment to the team and this city.

At least Lindner did bring back some fiscal sanity to this organization, and was instrumental in rebuilding the "physical" house on the outside with new facilities in GAB and also Louisville and Dayton. Whether one wants to acknowledge it or not, that is a start. But again, he, nor his FO staff didn't have the baseball knowledge and know-how to acuire the inner parts that make it a success. That is where they failed.

There is no reason why this organization cannot be consistently a winning, or at least a competitive organization, when I see similar franchises doing the same, such as Oakland, Cleveland, Minnesota, and Florida. It's not simply about spending more and more money. It's having smart people in that FO who can spend it wisely, evaluate talent, and build from there.

With Lindner, Allen, and Dano in place, and IMO, we could have had a 90 Mil payroll and still been losers. Amd some would have been saying "You need to open your pockets and spend more!"

I am not sure Lindner "failed" as much as he didn't care. He built the physical house, but left the Marge ruins to linger inside. Fact is, Carl needed to actually make moves to clean up the interior and he simply didn't want to do it and has now left it up to someone else, why the Reds spun in the wind for 5 years.

Cyclone792
01-23-2006, 01:11 AM
Yeah, but in the long run, and when you look at what happened to those players (as well as what they were trying to get money-wise), show me where we screwed up in any of that "fire sale"?

The fire sale didn't bother me one bit. It was who they went out and got to replace those players (especially in the BP). Now that sucked!

No, the firesale didn't bother me at all.

It was the fact that some of the players moved in the firesale were "sold" for cash instead of moved for actual players. Lindner gave us that constant silly line that he "just wants to break even," then goes out and sells players for cash while the franchise is rapidly appreciating in value.

The Guillen trade for Harang was an excellent example of some of the talent we could land if all the players were simply dealt for prospects/young talent instead of cash. If Williamson was dealt for prospects only then I'm sure we could have gotten someone much better than Dumatrait. Instead, Lindner wanted cash and the player we have to settle for is ... Phil Dumatrait.

All that extra cash did was allow Dan O'Brien an opportunity sign Eric Milton. :help: