PDA

View Full Version : All of the money is gone?



Willy
11-26-2006, 10:53 AM
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061126/COL09/611260437/1071/SPT04

Reds insider
Quick offseason start, but money matters
BY JOHN FAY | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
The week that began so loudly for the Reds ended quietly.

After signing free-agent shortstop Alex Gonzalez and reliever Mike Stanton and trading Jason LaRue on Tuesday, the Reds stayed off the transaction wire the rest of the week.

Wayne Krivsky said after the flurry of activity Tuesday that he was far from finished.


But the guess here is that the Reds aren't going to do a lot more as far as free agents are concerned. The club is keeping its player payroll a secret, but I'd be stunned if it reaches $80 million.

Reds CEO Bob Castellini says the new ownership budgets to break even. I'm no accountant, but if the Reds broke even with a payroll that was $60.9 million for the 25-man roster at the start of the 2006 season, they're not going to go to $80 million in '07 and break even. That's despite the added money from a new television contract and a bump in ticket prices.

Krivsky wouldn't talk about the payroll or free-agency plans Saturday.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the Reds' payroll will be $70 million. The club already has $49.225 million committed to 11 players: Ken Griffey Jr. ($12.5 million), Adam Dunn ($10.5 million), Eric Milton ($9 million), Bronson Arroyo ($3.8 million), Gonzalez ($3.5 million), Rheal Cormier ($2.25 million), Stanton ($2 million), Ryan Freel ($1.7 million), Scott Hatteberg ($1.65 million), Javier Valentin ($1.325 million) and Juan Castro ($1 million).

Add the $3 million the Reds are paying toward the salary of the departed LaRue, and you're at $52.225 million.

The Reds also have two big-ticket arbitration-eligible players in Aaron Harang and Kyle Lohse. Harang made $2.35 million last year. He led the National League in strikeouts and complete games and tied for the lead in wins.

The way arbitration works, he could ask for the moon and the Reds would be forced to counter with a slightly smaller celestial body.

Lohse made $3.95 million last year. He didn't have the kind of year Harang did. But with arbitration, there are no losers. And Lohse is in his third year of arbitration.

David Ross is also eligible. He made only $500,000 last year, but with the year he had, he'll be up to a million easily.

So say Harang gets $8 million, Lohse $6 million and Ross $1 million. That puts the Reds at $67 million, and they still have 11 roster spots to fill.

The rest of the roster will be filled with guys making $400,000 or less, but they're probably not going to push the payroll north of $70 million.

Krivsky guards what he's doing as if it's a state secret. But he did say the Reds probably will add a right-handed bat.

Hatteberg rarely started at first base against left-handers last season. Someone like Eduardo Perez, who made $1.75 million, would be a fit. Shea Hillenbrand would make sense as well. The fact that he plays third base also makes him very attractive, but he made $5.8 million last season.

Craig Wilson is also out there. He could be cheaper after he struggled in the second half.

As I mentioned above, I'd be stunned if the Reds went to an $80 million payroll. But Castellini is so competitive that after watching the Houston Astros sign Carlos Lee for $100 million over six years and the Chicago Cubs sign Alfonzo Soriano for $136 million over eight years, he might decide to do something drastic.

TOP 10 LIST: Baseball Prospectus recently came out with its list of top 10 Reds prospects:

Excellent prospects:

1. Homer Bailey, RH

2. Jay Bruce, RF

Very good prospects:

3. Joey Votto, 1B

Good prospects:

4. Drew Stubbs, CF

5. Johnny Cueto, RHP

6. Travis Wood, LHP

7. Sean Watson, LHP

Average prospects:

8. Milton Loo, SS/3B

9. Chris Valaika, SS

10. Paul Janish, SS

There are no surprises on the list. But the good news for Reds fans is how highly Bailey and Bruce are regarded.

"While (Edwin) Encarnacion is one of the most interesting young talents around, Bailey and Bruce are both elite prospects with impact potential, giving the Reds arguably the top single-pitching/single-hitting prospect combination in the game," the Prospectus said.

You can find the analysis at baseballprospectus.com

Wow that didn't take long. I would say this should end all of the Zito talk.
$8 Million for Harrang sounds high, and so does $6 Million for Loshe.
Either way there is not much money left.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 10:56 AM
Here's an idea: Don't offer Lohse arbitration and go after someone good.

Tom Servo
11-26-2006, 11:00 AM
Here's an idea: Don't offer Lohse arbitration and go after someone good.
Agreed, it's several million dollars that could be put towards get a legit starter.

Kc61
11-26-2006, 11:12 AM
Here's an idea: Don't offer Lohse arbitration and go after someone good.


Agree fully.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 11:13 AM
Here's an idea: Don't offer Lohse arbitration and go after someone good.

Here's another... take each John Fay for his word... he's not an accountant.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 11:15 AM
If the money is "gone" I vow never to go to another Reds' game until new ownership assume control of the club.

Redmachine2003
11-26-2006, 11:23 AM
WOW all this dome and gloom and we haven't even hit the winter meetings yet. Maybe I am wrong but don't most of the action start after the meetings, when arb. is offered to players, the 40 man rosters are set for the rule 5 draft, and most of the trades are made or at least laid out.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 11:29 AM
Here's another... take each John Fay for his word... he's not an accountant.


True, but he may be a messenger for the organization. They don't want to come out and say they are not going to spend money on any free agents but they have John Fay say it for them.

Krusty
11-26-2006, 11:39 AM
Last I read was Krivsky saying he was far from being finished. I think we'll see some action at the Winter Meetings despite what Fay might write.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 11:39 AM
So why did the club think it necessary to burn $3 million on Larue?

cincy09
11-26-2006, 11:40 AM
Ownership can't have it both ways. They promise so much, and if this article is correct, it will have been all lies.

icehole3
11-26-2006, 11:41 AM
I agree and anyone thinking we wont offer Lohse who's a former Twin, needs to put down the crack pipe.

Willy
11-26-2006, 11:43 AM
Harrang from $2.35 to $8 Million? That seems like a pretty big jump. I think we will see the Reds sign Harrang to a 4 year deal this offseason. Maybe for about $34 Million.

Reds4Life
11-26-2006, 11:43 AM
Why is it such a national secret what the payroll is going to be? Just release the info, other teams do it all the time. By them hiding the figure it makes me think all the talk of bumping the payroll was just lip service.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 11:46 AM
Why is it such a national secret what the payroll is going to be? Just release the info, other teams do it all the time. By them hiding the figure it makes me think all the talk of bumping the payroll was just lip service.

I know. It's idiotic these "games" they think they're playing.

Willy
11-26-2006, 11:49 AM
Why is it such a national secret what the payroll is going to be? Just release the info, other teams do it all the time. By them hiding the figure it makes me think all the talk of bumping the payroll was just lip service.

I don't think that the bump in payroll was lip service. A jump of around $10 million dollars($60 to $70 million) is a pretty good jump. The problem is they can't/aren't jumping it up as the same rate the market for players is growing at.

wheels
11-26-2006, 11:50 AM
I echo WoY's sentiments.

John Fay is not the authority here.

He's framed his conjecture to seem like fact.

I could just as easily say that I think the Reds have plenty of money left to spend, but who'd listen?

John Fay is perpetually irking me.

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 11:50 AM
I know that Fay is just speculating and I don't take what he says more seriously than any opinions I read here, but I agree that that figure is way too high for Lohse. I'm willing to give him a chance, but not at $6 million. Pitchers are expensive but I do think we can find a comparable or better pitcher for far less than that. And I am hoping the Reds recognize that. Heck, they're letting Aurilia walk and that was a more productive member of this team than Lohse.

On a side note, I know it's the nature of the beast and of contracts, but it absolutely sickens me to hear that Lohse has the potential to make almost twice what Arroyo does. Seniority in baseball is kind of whack. If there was that kind of salary disparity between that kind of production at any job I had, I'd throw a fit.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 11:52 AM
I echo WoY's sentiments.

John Fay is not the authority here.

He's framed his conjecture to seem like fact.

I could just as easily say that I think the Reds have plenty of money left to spend, but who'd listen?

John Fay is perpetually irking me.

I think if the Reds had the money to sign the FA player they wanted to sign they would have done so already. So I think Fay's deduction, in this instance, (i.e. the club's not going to go the FA route) is probably accurate.

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 11:54 AM
I think if the Reds had the money to sign the FA player they wanted to sign they would have done so already. So I think Fay's deduction, in this instance, (i.e. the club's not going to go the FA route) is probably accurate.

I think it's very possible that the Reds won't sign any major free agents, but I don't quite buy this reasoning. That kind of a signing is not entirely in their control at this point in November regardless of how much money they want to throw out there. Things will heat up across the board next month and at the Winter Meetings; I suspect a lot of free agents are biding their time until all the offers are in.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 11:56 AM
I think it's very possible that the Reds won't sign any major free agents, but I don't quite buy this reasoning. That kind of a signing is not entirely in their control at this point in November regardless of how much money they want to throw out there. Things will heat up across the board next month and at the Winter Meetings; I suspect a lot of free agents are biding their time until all the offers are in.

Maybe. But a bunch of FA signings have already been given the go-ahead. The market is crystallizing.

I think, as usual, there are many teams waiting for the Meetings to pick up the scrap heap FAs, and I'm sure there are some FAs holding out, but I think if a team wants a player now, they can get him. That's all I'm saying.

wheels
11-26-2006, 11:58 AM
I think if the Reds had the money to sign the FA player they wanted to sign they would have done so already. So I think Fay's deduction, in this instance, (i.e. the club's not going to go the FA route) is probably accurate.

The Reds will never be able to just go out and grab any guy they want, which is fine with me.

However, I would not be surprised to see a Craig Wilson type player signed. I'd bet my first born that they have the money to do that.:D

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 11:59 AM
However, I would not be surprised to see a Craig Wilson type player signed. I'd bet my first born that they have the money to do that.:D

The Lindner junta HAD the money to sign whomever they wanted.

But we saw how that worked out.

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 12:01 PM
I guess I'm thinking more about pitching. Unless my memory is failing me already, I don't think any of the big-name FA starting pitchers have signed yet.

Willy
11-26-2006, 12:01 PM
I think if the Reds had the money to sign the FA player they wanted to sign they would have done so already. So I think Fay's deduction, in this instance, (i.e. the club's not going to go the FA route) is probably accurate.

I don't completely agree with this. A lot of the second tier guys(Armas, Wolf, C.Wilson, Drew) are waiting for the losers of the big names. If I'm Tony Armas I'm waiting for the bidding war for Zito to end, then I'm selling myself to the losing GM. These teams have a certain amount of money they are going to spend and if they lose out on Zito, C. Lee, they are going to the next guy to spend that money on.

My point is a lot of guys are waiting for the market to unfold, for the Middle level GM's to do the same.

wheels
11-26-2006, 12:04 PM
The Lindner junta HAD the money to sign whomever they wanted.

But we saw how that worked out.

And that means what about Castellini, exactly?

Apples to oranges in my opinion.

I do understand your point, but I really think it could go in either direction.

I'm not really big on them spending a ton anyway.

RedsManRick
11-26-2006, 12:05 PM
I'd be shocked if Lohse honestly gets that kind of raise. Players get raises which take them towards their market value. He's coming off a season with a 5.83 ERA. I'm sorry, but even in this market, Kyle Lohse doesn't get 6MM in FA. If he comes back, it will be with a non-arb deal in the 3-4MM range. Personally, I'd show him the curb and go with Belisle or Ramirez. Not that either of those guys is great, but if all you want is somebody to eat 150 innings, why spent that kind of dough?

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 12:07 PM
And that means what about Castellini, exactly?

.

So far, Castellini in actions--not words--has shown himself to be similar to Lindner (the break-even philosophy).

Redmachine2003
11-26-2006, 12:09 PM
Maybe the reason the payroll is a secret is because the Reds are not sure themselves. Maybe the Reds would add 20-30 million if the right trades came about or if they didn't get out bid for free agents. But if they came out and said that they were going to raise the payroll to 100 mill and they couldn't work out the trades or free-agents decided to go some place else. Everyone would be crying that they lied and are cheap. Heck when ever they do make a trade or a signing the PR around here is that it is never enough and the Reds got the raw end of the deal.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 12:12 PM
So far, Castellini in actions--not words--has shown himself to be similar to Lindner (the break-even philosophy).
So far the man has owned the team less then one fiscal year so breaking even or making a profit hasn't even been determined.

MartyFan
11-26-2006, 12:13 PM
So far, Castellini in actions--not words--has shown himself to be similar to Lindner (the break-even philosophy).

Hmm..Was Linner a "break even" or spend as little as you have to type owner?

Mr. C has said from day one that his group would work off of the model used by the Cardinals which is to break even. What is the surprise here?

With the FA market like it is, I think they are doing what every other team in the league is doing and simply waiting and seeing what shakes out with the guys who want to spend stupid money.

Did we actually send 3 million dollars to the Royals in the LaRue deal?

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 12:14 PM
Maybe the reason the payroll is a secret is because the Reds are not sure themselves. Maybe the Reds would add 20-30 million if the right trades came about or if they didn't get out bid for free agents. But if they came out and said that they were going to raise the payroll to 100 mill and they couldn't work out the trades or free-agents decided to go some place else. Everyone would be crying that they lied and are cheap. Heck when ever they do make a trade or a signing the PR around here is that it is never enough and the Reds got the raw end of the deal.

I think they probably have a reason. It doesn't bother me that they're secretive about it; that might help them in their wheeling and dealing (if they ever do any). It might be complicated and dependent on a lot of factors and moves. We as fans certainly don't need to know, we'll speculate no matter what.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 12:15 PM
Did we actually send 3 million dollars to the Royals in the LaRue deal?

Yes, they sent the Royals 3 million.

My question is this: are the owners honestly surprised, I mean really surprised, at these FA contracts? After all they voted to approve the current CBA in under a minute or something.

This astonishment rings false, IMO.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 12:16 PM
Anyone who feels sorry for the owners I suggest you read Marvin Millers autobiography or Lords of the Realm, you'll change the tune you whistle on the subject.

MartyFan
11-26-2006, 12:18 PM
Yes, they sent the Royals 3 million.

My question is this: are the owners honestly surprised, I mean really surprised, at these FA contracts? After all they voted to approve the current CBA in under a minute or something.

This astonishment rings false, IMO.

I agree...I don't see how baseball will survive if it keeps going like this. Not because owners can't or won't pay the top players but because the fans won't be able to afford to go to the ballpark.

Wonder if fans have ever put together an effort to bring the cost of going to the game in check with these guys...sort of like a fan strike or at least a proposal to MLB signed by several hundred thousands of fans?

redsmetz
11-26-2006, 12:33 PM
I think it's very possible that the Reds won't sign any major free agents, but I don't quite buy this reasoning. That kind of a signing is not entirely in their control at this point in November regardless of how much money they want to throw out there. Things will heat up across the board next month and at the Winter Meetings; I suspect a lot of free agents are biding their time until all the offers are in.

That seemed to be precisely the point of the article from the St. Louis paper that I posted elsewhere. The market seems to be sitting back.

As to all the "woe is me" reaction to Fay's speculation, it's nothing, as others have said, but conjecture. And why on earth should the Reds broadcast to the known universe what their projected payroll budget is? They're in negotiations with free agents, their own players going in to arbritration, trading partners, etc. Why tip your hand so agents and GM's can know your boundaries? We'll know it soon enough after everything has settled.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 12:39 PM
Harrang from $2.35 to $8 Million? That seems like a pretty big jump. I think we will see the Reds sign Harrang to a 4 year deal this offseason. Maybe for about $34 Million.


Well, wouldn't that be 8.5M a year? :confused:

I could be wrong but I don't think Harang will get that much either. He's a 1st or 2nd year arb eligible player and while it's not carved in stone, they usually compare themselves to players who have the same service time. I could see him making $4-5M a year if they settle on a 1 year deal. Lohse, OTOH, could compare his record against anyone. What Fay said he'd make may be a little high, it probably isn't high by a lot. So why even offer him arbitration if the Reds can get someone who could do as good of a job for a lot less. Not that I want Homer up here right away but he could do as good of a job as Lohse - if not better - for a lot less. But so could Lizard or Belisle.

edabbs44
11-26-2006, 12:41 PM
If this is true then the AGon and Stanton contracts look much, much worse than originally perceived.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 01:04 PM
I agree...I don't see how baseball will survive if it keeps going like this.

That's managements unofficial slogan since 1876.

mth123
11-26-2006, 01:08 PM
I think Harang needs to be signed and $8 Million is ok by me. They need to dump Lohse (they could get something IMO), and, with Stanton on board, Cormier and his $2.25 Million.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 01:09 PM
As to all the "woe is me" reaction to Fay's speculation, it's nothing, as others have said, but conjecture. And why on earth should the Reds broadcast to the known universe what their projected payroll budget is? They're in negotiations with free agents, their own players going in to arbritration, trading partners, etc. Why tip your hand so agents and GM's can know your boundaries? We'll know it soon enough after everything has settled.

If this is from Reds management, it sounds exactly like something John Allen would say.

Willy
11-26-2006, 01:10 PM
Well, wouldn't that be 8.5M a year? :confused:

I really have no idea, but I thought if the Reds were going to buy out two years(?) of his free agency this would be a fair deal.

mth123
11-26-2006, 01:12 PM
And why on earth should the Reds broadcast to the known universe what their projected payroll budget is? They're in negotiations with free agents, their own players going in to arbritration, trading partners, etc. Why tip your hand so agents and GM's can know your boundaries? We'll know it soon enough after everything has settled.

That's correct. Keeping this secret is good business IMO. We like to speculate and its fun to do so, but keeping the budget secret is wise.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 01:29 PM
That's correct. Keeping this secret is good business IMO. We like to speculate and its fun to do so, but keeping the budget secret is wise.


You know, it probably is but it's not like people can't figure out on their own about how much payroll will be. I mean I don't think anyone in their right minds is going to believe the Reds are being coy with the payroll figure because they are going to increase payroll to $100M. To you and me it sounds like a lot of money but the difference between $75M and $80M isn't a lot. I don't think any agents are out there just waiting for that $15M/5 year deal from the Reds.

westofyou
11-26-2006, 01:44 PM
"The ever-increasing salaries are like lava coming down a mountain at us, It's the worst salary explosion we've had. At some point things have to blow apart."

Dick Wagner

2-18-1982

Ltlabner
11-26-2006, 02:34 PM
So if they don't dive in and spend big in the FA feeding frenzy they a bunch of liars and more "same old same old" but of course, the second they dove in and spent big money on a FA contract we'd hear nothing but wailing and gnashing of teath that they mortgaged the future and frittered the money away.

I know...people just want the money to be spent and spent they way they'd want it spent (which by default is the "smart way").

And when did John Fay become the default mouth piece of ownership? All of the local sports writers are a bunch of hacks and no nothings most of the year, what changed? Unless they write an article that opens the door to decry ownership as liars and no change from the past...then it's gospel I guess.

I'll wait till Krivsky and BCast come out and say, "we've spent our money and are done for the offseason" before I get all worked up.

redsmetz
11-26-2006, 02:37 PM
If this is from Reds management, it sounds exactly like something John Allen would say.

I really don't understand what you're implying in response to my statement. Are you inferring I'm just parroting a failed Reds direction from previous regimes?

Ltlabner
11-26-2006, 02:38 PM
As to all the "woe is me" reaction to Fay's speculation, it's nothing, as others have said, but conjecture. And why on earth should the Reds broadcast to the known universe what their projected payroll budget is? They're in negotiations with free agents, their own players going in to arbritration, trading partners, etc. Why tip your hand so agents and GM's can know your boundaries? We'll know it soon enough after everything has settled.

Dead on Redsmetz. Smart business and negotiations is to keep your cards close to your vest. Why give the agents any advantage? Their payroll is their business and while we have an emotional intrest in the Reds that doesn't grant us liscence to see the accounting books.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 02:41 PM
Dead on Redsmetz. Smart business and negotiations is to keep your cards close to your vest. Why give the agents any advantage? Their payroll is their business and while we have an emotional intrest in the Reds that doesn't grant us liscence to see the accounting books.

It's never helped the Reds before.

Ltlabner
11-26-2006, 02:43 PM
It's never helped the Reds before.

That previous management fumbled the ball doesn't change that it's smart business.

Willy
11-26-2006, 02:44 PM
It's never helped the Reds before.

Did it hurt them?

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 02:48 PM
Did it hurt them?

It's just that the idea of keeping the payroll a secret is incuriously accepted as conventional wisdom.

I've just not seen or heard of its benefits. Personally, I think it's to keep it from the fans more than it is to keep it from players and agents.

reds44
11-26-2006, 02:51 PM
Why would you pay Kyle Loshe 6 million?

Ltlabner
11-26-2006, 02:52 PM
It's just that the idea of keeping the payroll a secret is incuriously accepted as conventional wisdom.

I've just not seen or heard of its benefits. Personally, I think it's to keep it from the fans more than it is to keep it from players and agents.

I don't agree with your premise, but let's pretend that's true. So what? Where on your ticket does it say, "grants the buyer rights to know everthing about the operations of the team"? Does investing yourself in the team emotionally somehow grant you access to knoweldge that is none of your business.

The hand wringing over payroll, how much they should spend, how much they could spend, etc is a waste of time IMO. If BobC says he's going to raise payroll and doesn't by most reasonable calcualtions, THATS a problem. But worrying if they've spent all they could or should before the facts/details are in is silly.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 02:54 PM
I don't agree with your premise, but let's pretend that's true. So what? Where on your ticket does it say, "grants the buyer rights to know everthing about the operations of the team"? Does investing yourself in the team emotionally somehow grant you access to knoweldge that is none of your business.

The hand wringing over payroll, how much they should spend, how much they could spend, etc is a waste of time IMO.

I never said it did. Yeah, I don't care about the payroll all that much either. The Reds can win a world championship with their current payroll if they're smart.

reds44
11-26-2006, 02:56 PM
But for the sake of argument, let's say the Reds' payroll will be $70 million. The club already has $49.225 million committed to 11 players: Ken Griffey Jr. ($12.5 million), Adam Dunn ($10.5 million), Eric Milton ($9 million), Bronson Arroyo ($3.8 million), Gonzalez ($3.5 million), Rheal Cormier ($2.25 million), Stanton ($2 million), Ryan Freel ($1.7 million), Scott Hatteberg ($1.65 million), Javier Valentin ($1.325 million) and Juan Castro ($1 million).

The fact that we have nearly 20 million tied up in Griffey and Milton is ashame. When you are a small market team, that will cripple your budget.

Because of previous GMs, Krivsky is basically playing with a $50 million payroll. That's not his fault.

edabbs44
11-26-2006, 02:59 PM
The fact that we have nearly 20 million tied up in Griffey and Milton is ashame. When you are a small market team, that will cripple your budget.

Because of previous GMs, Krivsky is basically playing with a $50 million payroll. That's not his fault.

Cormier, Hatteberg, Gonzalez, Stanton and potentially Lohse. Those are his fault and that (depending on his Lohse decision) will probably make up over 20% of his $50 million. That's a lot of $$$ on guys who aren't really going to make a difference.

reds44
11-26-2006, 03:05 PM
Cormier, Hatteberg, Gonzalez, Stanton and potentially Lohse. Those are his fault and that (depending on his Lohse decision) will probably make up over 20% of his $50 million. That's a lot of $$$ on guys who aren't really going to make a difference.

Gonzalez ($3.5 million), Rheal Cormier ($2.25 million), Stanton ($2 million), Scott Hatteberg ($1.65 million) Juan Castro ($1 million).

Castro was Krivsky's doing also. I didn't include Loshe because we have yet to see if he will be in back.

That is 10.4 million. Gonzalez will be the starting SS, and Hatteberg the starting 1B. Cormier and Stanton will be in the bullpen, and Castro will be EE's defensive replacement. That is quite a bit of difference.

I would say the is much better spent money then the 9 on Milton for sure.

RFS62
11-26-2006, 03:06 PM
If you negotiate for a living, you know that you never shoot a bullet unless you need it.

There is nothing for the front office to gain by showing any of their hand.

It wouldn't matter what he said, anyway. The complainers would still complain, no matter what the number.

edabbs44
11-26-2006, 03:11 PM
Gonzalez ($3.5 million), Rheal Cormier ($2.25 million), Stanton ($2 million), Scott Hatteberg ($1.65 million) Juan Castro ($1 million).

Castro was Krivsky's doing also. I didn't include Loshe because we have yet to see if he will be in back.

That is 10.4 million. Gonzalez will be the starting SS, and Hatteberg the starting 1B. Cormier and Stanton will be in the bullpen, and Castro will be EE's defensive replacement. That is quite a bit of difference.

I would say the is much better spent money then the 9 on Milton for sure.

Sure they will be starting, but I don't see these guys actually contributing too much. Put Votto in for Hatteberg. Saves money. Gonzo is a complete waste of $3.5 million. Stanton...do we really have 5 million over the next 2 years to put on a 40 year old pitcher? Ditto Rheal. Castro, to me, is the best bargain of this group. Can back up most or all of the IF for $1 million. Great bargain.

Obviously Milton and Griffey's contracts are franchise killers. But it's not like Wayne gets a free pass. He has to use the money more wisely. If those 2 contracts are really hindering the progress of the franchise, then why piss away money on these other guys?

westofyou
11-26-2006, 03:14 PM
No team has identified itself as having interest in Bonds. Oakland has been mentioned as a possibility, but General Manager Billy Beane declined to comment.



“We don’t publicly talk about free agents we might have interest in,” he said.

Keeping it close to the vest, part of not being a bobo anymore.

reds44
11-26-2006, 03:18 PM
Sure they will be starting, but I don't see these guys actually contributing too much. Put Votto in for Hatteberg. Saves money. Gonzo is a complete waste of $3.5 million. Stanton...do we really have 5 million over the next 2 years to put on a 40 year old pitcher? Ditto Rheal. Castro, to me, is the best bargain of this group. Can back up most or all of the IF for $1 million. Great bargain.

Obviously Milton and Griffey's contracts are franchise killers. But it's not like Wayne gets a free pass. He has to use the money more wisely. If those 2 contracts are really hindering the progress of the franchise, then why piss away money on these other guys?
Gonzalez is not worthless by any means. He has a legit chance of winning the GG next year, and was the 2nd best SS on the market.

Hatteberg will be gone next year when Votoo is ready. Until then, he is a good guy to work the count and get on base. For under 2 million for only 1 year, I don't think he is a bad deal at all.

I would say Cormier at 2.25 mil. is the most questionable deal of the bunch. However, he is only signed through 07 (we have an option for 08, which if he does poorly we won't pick up) and he had an ERA under 2 with the Phillies last year. It's really not that terrible of a contact.

Stanton is a solid guy who you know what you will get. If we can't sign a closer, he will probably start the season as the closer because he has expierence. He can pitch from any inning from 5-9, so it's nice to have a guy like that. 2 million is probably a bit too much money, but nothing to lose sleep over.

I have no problem with Castro's contact. Good defender, and seems to come up with big hits.

I hope we don't give Loshe 6 million. Now that would be stupid, I agree.

When you look at the money we will have available after 07, I expect next year to be the year we go after a big name guy.

edabbs44
11-26-2006, 03:27 PM
Gonzalez is not worthless by any means. He has a legit chance of winning the GG next year, and was the 2nd best SS on the market.

Hatteberg will be gone next year when Votoo is ready. Until then, he is a good guy to work the count and get on base. For under 2 million for only 1 year, I don't think he is a bad deal at all.

I would say Cormier at 2.25 mil. is the most questionable deal of the bunch. However, he is only signed through 07 (we have an option for 08, which if he does poorly we won't pick up) and he had an ERA under 2 with the Phillies last year. It's really not that terrible of a contact.

Stanton is a solid guy who you know what you will get. If we can't sign a closer, he will probably start the season as the closer because he has expierence. He can pitch from any inning from 5-9, so it's nice to have a guy like that. 2 million is probably a bit too much money, but nothing to lose sleep over.

I have no problem with Castro's contact. Good defender, and seems to come up with big hits.

I hope we don't give Loshe 6 million. Now that would be stupid, I agree.

When you look at the money we will have available after 07, I expect next year to be the year we go after a big name guy.

When Gonzo unleashes his sub .300 OBP next year, we'll see how his contract looks then.

Stanton and Rheal can only get worse from here. They are old. Rheal's ERA was Rheally great in Philly, and he Rheally stunk it up in Cincy.

Everyone loved Hatte until August and September. Everyone was falling all over themselves for how great an addition he was. He was one of the worst players on the team down the stretch. Congrats Scott, here's an extension.

Listen, these guys will obviously help the team be a little more competitive next season. But they do not put this team into contention, and IMO, they are then wastes of $. Take the money and put it into scouting, the intl mkt and the draft. Each of those players represents a nice signing bonus. I'd rather have a top Dominican prospect signed than Hatteberg at 1st this year.

Chip R
11-26-2006, 03:39 PM
I really don't understand what you're implying in response to my statement. Are you inferring I'm just parroting a failed Reds direction from previous regimes?


Not you, but John Fay. That article sounds exactly what we'd hear out of John Allen in previous years. Allen may not be involved on the baseball side of operations anymore but since he is still the Chief Operating Officer, I would guess he may have some influence on how much is spent. If, and I don't know for sure, this is information that Allen wanted people to know about, what better way to do it then to have lunch with John Fay and have the subject come up. Now it may be that Fay has done this on his own volition but, after reading his stuff for a few years, I'm not so sure he's that clever.

dunner13
11-26-2006, 03:55 PM
The winter is not over, he may still be able to move the contracts of milton or even dunn. Which would free up alot of money assuming the players we got back didnt make as much. We need to wait at least until january before deciding that wayne is done.

fearofpopvol1
11-26-2006, 04:16 PM
It's tough to speculate on what is and what isn't true about the payroll for the Reds and what will ultimately happen. Since neither BCast nor WK have been with the organization for a year, I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt and will withhold judgment until the time passes.

However, if what Fay said ends up being correct (because it could be) I hope that they dump Dunn and Griffey and Milton (if the latter 2 are possible) and start stocking up the AA and AAA prospects because this team won't be competing in 2007.

Redhook
11-26-2006, 05:15 PM
Unfortunately for 2007, I don't think it matters how much money we have left to spend. I believe we have too many holes to fill and it appears Wayne is mixing and matching trying to get it to work out. I don't see it happening. And it's frustrating because we were only 2-3 good pitchers away from being a pretty darn good ballclub last year. Now, we're 2 hitters and STILL 2-3 good pitchers away. If we added a good #3 starter or better, Stanton, and one more good reliever to last year's offense prior to the trade then we would've had a very good club. Now we need so much more and this market won't allow us to get it. I'm usually very optimistic, but right now I'm already looking towards 2008. I'm just hoping Wayne doesn't pick up too many more Alex Gonzales' that cripple us for 2008 and beyond.

redsmetz
11-26-2006, 05:24 PM
Not you, but John Fay. That article sounds exactly what we'd hear out of John Allen in previous years. Allen may not be involved on the baseball side of operations anymore but since he is still the Chief Operating Officer, I would guess he may have some influence on how much is spent. If, and I don't know for sure, this is information that Allen wanted people to know about, what better way to do it then to have lunch with John Fay and have the subject come up. Now it may be that Fay has done this on his own volition but, after reading his stuff for a few years, I'm not so sure he's that clever.

I just assumed since you quoted my bit, that you were lining me up there. My point is that John Fay and most of us are just conjecturing. As I said, we won't know the number until things are done. I think Fay's pulling it out of his tailend because today's instant news age requires something to be written.

While I'm sure Allen has some part in budgets overall, I doubt that ties into actual player moves. It's a different day, IMO, and we'll see a methodical reordering of the Reds' house, impatience at Redszone notwithstanding (and that's not aimed at you, just the general atmosphere around here wanting radical change to happen overnight - if not sooner).

Caveat Emperor
11-26-2006, 06:50 PM
I've just not seen or heard of its benefits. Personally, I think it's to keep it from the fans more than it is to keep it from players and agents.

Its one less piece of information that agents and players have at the bargaining table with the Reds. Negotiation always turns on information and leverage -- the side with more information will have an easier time using its leverage to get the best possible agreement.

I think you also give the fans too much credit. I'd be willing to bet less than 25% of the teams fans follows closely enough to tell you what the payroll is for any given team they follow other than to say it's "high" or "low."

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 06:55 PM
Its one less piece of information that agents and players have at the bargaining table with the Reds. Negotiation always turns on information and leverage -- the side with more information will have an easier time using its leverage to get the best possible agreement.

I think you also give the fans too much credit. I'd be willing to bet less than 25% of the teams fans follows closely enough to tell you what the payroll is for any given team they follow other than to say it's "high" or "low."

You might be right about fans' intelligence.

But I seriously doubt players and agents are really gaslighted by FOes keeping mum about payroll.

Oh well, it's a pretty minor point. I just think it's kind of goofy, as Reds4Life says, like it's some great state secret.

vaticanplum
11-26-2006, 07:12 PM
You know, it probably is but it's not like people can't figure out on their own about how much payroll will be. I mean I don't think anyone in their right minds is going to believe the Reds are being coy with the payroll figure because they are going to increase payroll to $100M. To you and me it sounds like a lot of money but the difference between $75M and $80M isn't a lot. I don't think any agents are out there just waiting for that $15M/5 year deal from the Reds.

You're right that nobody expects their payroll to be $100 million next year, but counting the outermost corners it could be anywhere from $65-85 million. That is a big difference, especially if some of the contracts are backloaded.

This may be wishful thinking on my part -- I really think that Gonzalez may end up being the biggest FA name the Reds sign -- but a $15/5 deal is not impossible for this team if their payroll does go up to $80 million. If they can eke out $15 million for next season alone, they free themselves up to a degree with Milton gone next year and Junior in two years. Granted, more money will probably be going to Harang/Arroyo/whathaveyou, but ideally that one $15/5 signing is a good enough one to make the team competitive and bring in more money from the fans.

The scariest thing is that I don't know that a $15/5-type player CAN be enough to make the team competitive in this market.

mth123
11-26-2006, 07:27 PM
You're right that nobody expects their payroll to be $100 million next year, but counting the outermost corners it could be anywhere from $65-85 million. That is a big difference, especially if some of the contracts are backloaded.

This may be wishful thinking on my part -- I really think that Gonzalez may end up being the biggest FA name the Reds sign -- but a $15/5 deal is not impossible for this team if their payroll does go up to $80 million. If they can eke out $15 million for next season alone, they free themselves up to a degree with Milton gone next year and Junior in two years. Granted, more money will probably be going to Harang/Arroyo/whathaveyou, but ideally that one $15/5 signing is a good enough one to make the team competitive and bring in more money from the fans.

The scariest thing is that I don't know that a $15/5-type player CAN be enough to make the team competitive in this market.

You won't get the starter you need for that, but it would bring a Craig Wilson or Trot Nixon. Maybe not Jay Payton. Any of those guys would be a big help. If they cut Lohse and Cormier loose in a deal they may have quite a bit of room to take on a contract or make some precise signings for some of the teams needs. Freel, Cormier and Lohse represent $10 Million from the numbers in Fay's article. They can make room to get the pitcher and hitter they need. May have to muddle through closer but 1 decent starter and some added power even if its only from a RH platoon guy would make this team competitive IMO. No one else has 3 good starters in the Division unless Mark Prior returns from the dead. Maybe Sheets, Capuano and Bush would qualify.

Falls City Beer
11-26-2006, 07:32 PM
You won't get the starter you need for that, but it would bring a Craig Wilson or Trot Nixon. Maybe not Jay Payton. Any of those guys would be a big help. If they cut Lohse and Cormier loose in a deal they may have quite a bit of room to take on a contract or make some precise signings for some of the teams needs. Freel, Cormier and Lohse represent $10 Million from the numbers in Fay's article. They can make room to get the pitcher and hitter they need. May have to muddle through closer but 1 decent starter and some added power even if its only from a RH platoon guy would make this team competitive IMO. No one else has 3 good starters in the Division unless Mark Prior returns from the dead. Maybe Sheets, Capuano and Bush would qualify.

Some solid thinking here. Certainly beats the shoulder-shrugging stay-the-course-and-have-faith attitude that pervades.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
11-26-2006, 09:37 PM
So why did the club think it necessary to burn $3 million on Larue?
that was just three million for this year, how long was his contract? It saves quite a bit of cash if he still had a couple of years left on his deal. Bottom line is that we wont be paying him to sit on the bench after this season.

Redsland
11-26-2006, 10:19 PM
that was just three million for this year, how long was his contract?
'07 is the final year of his contract, which will pay him $5.2 million, plus a $250,000 trade bonus. So the Reds are paying him $3 million to go away, rather than $2.2 million more to stay.

Jpup
11-27-2006, 12:09 AM
'07 is the final year of his contract, which will pay him $5.2 million, plus a $250,000 trade bonus. So the Reds are paying him $3 million to go away, rather than $2.2 million more to stay.

IMO, other than the way that the Kearns trade looks right now, paying the Royals to take LaRue has to be the worst move of the Krivsky tenure thus far.

Another thing, I love how people talk about Hatteberg not making a difference and how easy he is to replace. Name one guy, one guy that you could get for what the Reds are paying him that would produce to the level that he does. That is not going to happen unless the guy is a complete unknown. Personally, I would bring up Votto and let he and Scott split time at 1st until Votto is ready to take over everyday.

I don't care how much the Reds spend, I just want them to get better and win more games while improving the farm system. Losing stinks and that is why Krivsky was brought in IMO. The next 3 weeks will show me a lot.

LINEDRIVER
11-27-2006, 06:32 AM
So why did the club think it necessary to burn $3 million on Larue?

Seems to me that LaRue's three-million dollars worth of bellyaching over a lack of playing time was such a problem in the clubhouse and in Jerry's office that he just had to go.

RedLegSuperStar
11-27-2006, 07:17 AM
Harrang from $2.35 to $8 Million? That seems like a pretty big jump. I think we will see the Reds sign Harrang to a 4 year deal this offseason. Maybe for about $34 Million.

I agree.. You have to lock Harang up.

redsmetz
11-27-2006, 08:37 AM
I hadn't checked the Dayton Daily News site in a while and found this little excerpt from a column by Hal McCoy dated last Tuesday. I find it more of what I would expect from WK.


"If I'm done on Nov. 20, we're in trouble," he [Krivsky] said. "Done never happens. You are always looking to get better."

Just moments after Krivsky got off the telephone talking about Gonzalez and Stanton, the Reds announced they had traded catcher Jason LaRue to Kansas City for a player to be named later.

And Krivsky says he isn't finished. The winter meetings Dec. 3-7 in Orlando are a spawning ground for trades, with all teams in attendance, all looking to deal.

"I hope to be active, hope to be in a lot of conversations to definitely check things out," he said. "Any way we can make the team better we'll try to do."

M2
11-27-2006, 10:24 AM
I'm not sure whether Fay's worse as a reporter or a logician.

He could look at the team's ticket price increase, the increased attendance from last season, the new media deals its struck and, most of all, the massive amounts of new league money flowing into the team coffers and try to pinpoint just how much extra the team hauls in compared to, say, 2005. That would involve some actual enterprise reporting though.

On the logic side, he's based the "all the money is gone" argument on a faulty premise. Sure, Castellini said his goal was to break even and the team spent $60.9M last season, but that doesn't mean the team broke even last season. Yet Castellini only came in at the tail end of last offseason and he always maintained the team could add more talent if the opportunity presented itself. Last year's player payroll was actually slightly below the 2005 figure and we know shared league revenues took a healthy jump last year. So there's no reason to think the Reds were at or particularly near their break-even point in 2006.

Plus, does anyone actually believe the 29 teams other than the Reds have a whole lot of extra money to spend?

Frankly, the only sentence in the Fay article that really means anything is this one: "Wayne Krivsky said after the flurry of activity Tuesday that he was far from finished."

The Reds have flat out told us that more is coming. John Fay ought to listen to his source on this one.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 11:47 AM
The Reds have flat out told us that more is coming. John Fay ought to listen to his source on this one.

There's more coming, no doubt. But I think the question is valid one: is there more money coming? So far, so bad.

Not that I would trust Fay to accurately answer that question. But still, the team hasn't boosted the payroll in earnest since Cast took over.

From where I sit, it's better to doubt this franchise than get your hopes up.

M2
11-27-2006, 12:19 PM
There's more coming, no doubt. But I think the question is valid one: is there more money coming? So far, so bad.

Not that I would trust Fay to accurately answer that question. But still, the team hasn't boosted the payroll in earnest since Cast took over.

From where I sit, it's better to doubt this franchise than get your hopes up.

Cast spent some money at the end of last winter, picking up Arroyo and Hatteberg.

I don't think of it in terms of doubt vs. getting your hopes up. I don't even necessarily subscribe to the notion that spending money is the way out of the team's current predicament. I'm certainly not opposed to it and I see no reason, given the influx of money into the game, why the Reds couldn't spend more if the right players come available. Yet, I'm not going to judge the merit of the team based on what it's spent. If the Reds can mine another good starter and another starter with some unrealized upside in addition to sorting out the offense and the CF situation then I'll be a generally happy camper regardless of the price tag attached to it.

Now, I don't necessarily expect all of that to happen, but money, for me, is always subordinate to what the team needs. If money can get you that, great. If it's a lower cost solution to a given problem, that's fine too.

flyer85
11-27-2006, 12:26 PM
as far as free agency is concerned(for the most part) there hasn't been much bang for the buck(apart from a couple). Holding on to your cash at the moment is probably not a bad idea, certainly better than getting involved in a bad LT deal like teams have been doing left and right.

Z-Fly
11-27-2006, 12:34 PM
as far as free agency is concerned(for the most part) there hasn't been much bang for the buck(apart from a couple). Holding on to your cash at the moment is probably not a bad idea, certainly better than getting involved in a bad LT deal like teams have been doing left and right.

See I don't know that I agree with that. I don't have a better answer. In some ways I agree with what you are saying, but what does a team with holes and not a lot of talent to trade do?

There are not a lot of players jumping through hoops to come to the reds. So you almost have to overspend.

It just seems like a huge catch 22. :thumbdown

flyer85
11-27-2006, 12:41 PM
but what does a team with holes and not a lot of talent to trade do?wait. A number of guys on cheap one year deals will pitch better than the expensive multiyear ones.

Remember the 2004 free agent multiyear starting pitching class.
Wright
Pavano
Ortiz
Martinez
Clement
OPerez
Milton
Leiber
Benson, etc

The only one I can think of who has even been decent is Lowe.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 02:22 PM
Cast spent some money at the end of last winter, picking up Arroyo and Hatteberg.

I don't think of it in terms of doubt vs. getting your hopes up. I don't even necessarily subscribe to the notion that spending money is the way out of the team's current predicament. I'm certainly not opposed to it and I see no reason, given the influx of money into the game, why the Reds couldn't spend more if the right players come available. Yet, I'm not going to judge the merit of the team based on what it's spent. If the Reds can mine another good starter and another starter with some unrealized upside in addition to sorting out the offense and the CF situation then I'll be a generally happy camper regardless of the price tag attached to it.

Now, I don't necessarily expect all of that to happen, but money, for me, is always subordinate to what the team needs. If money can get you that, great. If it's a lower cost solution to a given problem, that's fine too.


I think you know me better than to assume I'd judge the team on money spent.

But what I'm saying is what you echo in your final paragraph. More often than not getting done what needs to get done requires a little fudging on your payroll ceiling--and sometimes it requires a genuine payroll boost. Cast gave the team a "cost-of-living" boost to get guys like Hatte and Arroyo, but not a wholesale raise. And let's face it, spending a little dough at the deadline means the Reds probably win the Central last year (cf Maddux).

I don't feel a bit better about the fortunes of the current roster than I did this time last year; different concerns, but just as big. No, Cast. shouldn't go hog-wild and try to fix the entire problem with cash, but he sure as hell shouldn't let cash preclude the Reds from making a great acquisition.

Ltlabner
11-27-2006, 02:31 PM
And let's face it, spending a little dough at the deadline means the Reds probably win the Central last year (cf Maddux).

No, Cast. shouldn't go hog-wild and try to fix the entire problem with cash, but he sure as hell shouldn't let cash preclude the Reds from making a great acquisition.

I really throught I remembered them raising payroll to bring in Cromier and Schowenwess at the deadline last year. I can't remember so I woln't go out on that limb any further. If I am remembering correctly they did "spend a little dough". Maybe not how you would have wanted it spent, but it was spent none the less.

Has Cast done anything in your mind to give you reason to belive he would nix a deal because they don't have the money. You've been making that claim on various threads and I'd like to see some reasoning for this other than your paranoia or bad vibes.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 02:34 PM
You've been making that claim on various threads and I'd like to see some reasoning for this other than your paranoia or bad vibes.

Paranoia? That's rich.

I don't give a person the benefit of the doubt for puffing out his chest and saying, "I am not a patient man."

Not this godforsaken franchise. Not after the swill they've sold the fans the last 15 years. No sir.

Actions alone.

Win and you earn my undying gratitude and respect. I am a brutally easy man to please. Win.

M2
11-27-2006, 02:39 PM
I think you know me better than to assume I'd judge the team on money spent.

I wasn't making that assumption and I know you don't. I was just removing from the picture for anyone reading my post.


But what I'm saying is what you echo in your final paragraph. More often than not getting done what needs to get done requires a little fudging on your payroll ceiling--and sometimes it requires a genuine payroll boost. Cast gave the team a "cost-of-living" boost to get guys like Hatte and Arroyo, but not a wholesale raise. And let's face it, spending a little dough at the deadline means the Reds probably win the Central last year (cf Maddux).

True enough, Cast only managed to get the Reds back to their 2005 spending levels after Lindner and the limiteds had sheared it back prior to the sale. He surely had money to spend in his pocket throughout the season. To his credit, he pretty much owned up to it, insisting the Reds could pick up talent if it presented itself last summer. I'm not really sure what the could have bought. Greg Maddux would have been nice, but it was a lean market for buyers with so many teams in contention.

Anyway, I don't think he's really had much chance to prove himself tight or free with the dollars yet. I agree with you that the team needs to be willing to spend on the right players and to completely blast through the club's established payroll ceiling.


I don't feel a bit better about the fortunes of the current roster than I did this time last year; different concerns, but just as big. No, Cast. shouldn't go hog-wild and try to fix the entire problem with cash, but he sure as hell shouldn't let cash preclude the Reds from making a great acquisition.

I feel better about the team's chances because of Arroyo. He and Harang present the team with a two-year window unlike anything they've had in recent years. The defense is one Ken Griffey Jr. out of CF from being mostly shored up. The offense is a concern where it wasn't last year and there's still some gaping pitching holes, but offense always strikes me as a workable problem (e.g. one that can be fixed in relatively short order by a smart GM).

I'm with you 100% on what the team's approach to spending should be. So far we haven't heard the team wail about how it can't afford good players during the Cast regime and I'm not going to be all that sympathetic if/when it happens. My take is that their charge is to make it work and if that involves spending cash, then spend the cash.

M2
11-27-2006, 02:43 PM
I really throught I remembered them raising payroll to bring in Cromier and Schowenwess at the deadline last year.

What they spent was pretty much offset by what they saved on Kearns and Lopez. I've given the club the benefit of the doubt on money not being a central motivator for dumping Kearns and Lopez (and my take on the franchise would be fairly dour if I thought cash was a primary motivator), but the ebb and flow of the team's cash was probably close to even after you sort through all of the various deals Krivsky made.

Ltlabner
11-27-2006, 02:54 PM
Paranoia? That's rich.

I don't give a person the benefit of the doubt for puffing out his chest and saying, "I am not a patient man."

Not this godforsaken franchise. Not after the swill they've sold the fans the last 15 years. No sir.

Actions alone.

Win and you earn my undying gratitude and respect. I am a brutally easy man to please. Win.

Hahahahaha that's a rich one too! You'll be pleased.....like when they were winning last year and you spent your time saying "the collapse is near" from May 1st on. IIRC you even patted yourself on the back a number of times for your prediction.

You say "actions alone". Ok...what actions has BCast taken to give you reason to assume he is a liar and will not follow through on what he said? What specific, concrete actions has he taken that gives you the ammo to make the various statements and implications you've made on various threads?

Spring~Fields
11-27-2006, 02:58 PM
I don't give a person the benefit of the doubt for puffing out his chest and saying, "I am not a patient man."

Not this godforsaken franchise. Not after the swill they've sold the fans the last 15 years. No sir.

Actions alone.

Win and you earn my undying gratitude and respect. I am a brutally easy man to please. Win.

Yes , :thumbup: They hire PR companies to tutor them on what to say.

Verbal, non-verbal and written communications. Actions is non-verbal and speaks to what they are really thinking, saying and doing. The end results tell us if they were correct.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 03:05 PM
Hahahahaha that's a rich one too! You'll be pleased.....like when they were winning last year and you spent your time saying "the collapse is near" from May 1st on. IIRC you even patted yourself on the back a number of times for your prediction.

You say "actions alone". Ok...what actions has BCast taken to give you reason to assume he is a liar and will not follow through on what he said? What specific, concrete actions has he taken that gives you the ammo to make the various statements and implications you've made on various threads?


The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not the one standing at the podium.

Matt700wlw
11-27-2006, 03:09 PM
If that's it...it was a pretty poor offseason showing by new ownership.

It's not that I dislike the signings....or trading Larue, but with what the Cubs and the Astros have done....the Reds are a bit behind the 8 ball if that's the end of it.

Ltlabner
11-27-2006, 03:20 PM
If that's it...it was a pretty poor offseason showing by new ownership.

It's not that I dislike the signings....or trading Larue, but what the Cubs and the Astros have done....the Reds are a bit behind the 8 ball

Here's what I don't understand. If the Reds had gone out and signed any of the wild deals that we've seen thus far this board would melt down with anger. Obviously we want them to spend the money well, not foolishly. Why is waiting till things cool off and not anchoring the team with another dumb contract (ala Milton, LaRue, Casey, Jr) suddenly a bad way of managing your money?

And the Reds haven't been devoid of activity. It may not be the activity you wanted, but they have been making moves to advance the team. The Reds go out and sign Gonzo who is generally determined to be a spot-on solution to the MI defense issues. People wanted Krivsky to do more than pay lip-service to defence, well he took a step in the right direction. They dumped LaRue, saved some money (albiet not as much as I'd like) and have a shot at a PTBNL. People (myself included) moaned about the 3 headed catching monster...well, now they've dealt with it. They've brought in Stanton for the bullpen. They've also offer several ML contracts.

It just seems to me that trying to go after a big name will take (1) a ton of cash (2) a dumb contract until cooler heads prevail. I don't see taking a common sense approach to dealing with a over heated FA market as proof that it's the same-old-same-old.

Matt700wlw
11-27-2006, 03:29 PM
Like I said, I don't dislike what they've done.....I just hope they aren't finished.

I feel what they've done is a step in a positive direction, just not sure it's enough to "win now" as Castellini wants to do.

Of course, it is only November....and there's a lot of offseason left.

M2
11-27-2006, 03:31 PM
Hahahahaha that's a rich one too! You'll be pleased.....like when they were winning last year and you spent your time saying "the collapse is near" from May 1st on. IIRC you even patted yourself on the back a number of times for your prediction.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that FCB would be a happy camper if the team were built to win. Known him for a long time here in cyberspace.

As for not buying into the pretender that was the 2006 Reds, I hardly see that as a litmus test. So he knows the difference between a mirage and an oasis.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 03:32 PM
Like I said, I don't dislike what they've done.....I just hope they aren't finished.

I feel what they've done is a step in a positive direction, just not sure it's enough to "win now" as Castellini wants to do.

Of course, it is only November....and there's a lot of offseason left.

The offseason pretty much ends after the GM meetings only to resume again in February when last minute dealings happen.

It's not as long an offseason as you think. And while, yes, some teams are awaiting the FA shakeout, trades should be getting made right now. There's really nothing to stop teams from making trades this minute.

Chip R
11-27-2006, 03:50 PM
Here's my list of the 22 guys most likely to make this club, including Lohse, and what their 2007 salaries will probably be. The figures in red are estimates of what the player will make in either arbitration or what the club will offer the non arbitration eligible players. So perhaps the situation is not as desperate as John Fay would have us think it is.


Aaron Harang 5,000,000
Kyle Lohse 5,000,000
Matt Belisle 350,000
Bill Bray 350,000
Brandon Claussen 500,000
Todd Coffey 400,000
Chris Denorfia 327,000
Edwin Encarnacion 500,000
Gary Majewski 375,000
Brandon Phillips 400,000
David Ross 2,000,000
Bronson Arroyo 3,800,000
Rheal Cormier 2,250,000
Adam Dunn 10,500,000
Ryan Freel 2,650,000
Scott Hatteberg 1,500,000
Eric Milton 9,000,000
Javier Valentin 1,250,000
Alex Gonzalez 4,666,667
Juan Castro 925,000
Mike Stanton 2,750,000
Ken Griffey, Jr. 12,500,000
Total $66,993,667

M2
11-27-2006, 03:54 PM
Nice breakdown Chip. And it should be noted that Jr.'s actual cost is well below his listed price because most of his contract is deferred.

Ltlabner
11-27-2006, 03:54 PM
There isn't a doubt in my mind that FCB would be a happy camper if the team were built to win. Known him for a long time here in cyberspace.

Oh, I have no doubt about that.

I just don't agree with the premise that big gaudy contract = real commitment from BCast for winning. People, not just FCB alone, seem to be making the case that until BCast ups payroll by 50% or goes out and buys Barry Zito or signs a gynormus FA contract they will not believe he is comitted to wining.

We've been shown clearly how lousey big contracts can derail a team with the likes of Milton, LaRue, Jr, Casey et al We've also been shown very clearly that this particular FA market is chock full of lousey big contracts such as Pierre, Sorrano, et al. So we expect the Reds to make a big splashy FA signing to prove they are for real, but we also expect them to make a SMART big splashy singing in a FA market awash with big DUMB contacts. Seems like the defination of a no win situation to me.

I think smaller smart signings/trades is a far more effective way of proving they are commited to winning. It's not as sexy and it woln't satisfy the "prove it to me now" crowd, but IMO it's a far smarter way of doing things.

Redsland
11-27-2006, 04:04 PM
Chip,

The MLB minimum is going up to $380,000 in 2007.

That'll push all of your pe-arbs up a bit.

Redsland
11-27-2006, 04:14 PM
Also, as M2 said, Jr.'s salary isn't "really" $12.5MM. At the time of the deal, published reports said its net present value was $9.2-9.3MM annually.

M2
11-27-2006, 04:19 PM
Oh, I have no doubt about that.

I just don't agree with the premise that big gaudy contract = real commitment from BCast for winning. People, not just FCB alone, seem to be making the case that until BCast ups payroll by 50% or goes out and buys Barry Zito or signs a gynormus FA contract they will not believe he is comitted to wining.

We've been shown clearly how lousey big contracts can derail a team with the likes of Milton, LaRue, Jr, Casey et al We've also been shown very clearly that this particular FA market is chock full of lousey big contracts such as Pierre, Sorrano, et al. So we expect the Reds to make a big splashy FA signing to prove they are for real, but we also expect them to make a SMART big splashy singing in a FA market awash with big DUMB contacts. Seems like the defination of a no win situation to me.

I think smaller smart signings/trades is a far more effective way of proving they are commited to winning. It's not as sexy and it woln't satisfy the "prove it to me now" crowd, but IMO it's a far smarter way of doing things.

I don't get the sense that anyone wants to the Reds to pay a lot of money to some schlub and expect great things from him (a practice that should now be referred as "pulling a Milton"). Yet if the Reds overpaid for a really player I'm guessing most people could get on board with that.

I agree the team doesn't have a single problem so that one big signing won't make everything right, but another hoss starting pitcher would put the club perilously close to having its act in gear.

To put it another way, I'm for solutions both big and small.

pedro
11-27-2006, 04:21 PM
John Fay doesn't have a clue IMO.

Chip R
11-27-2006, 04:23 PM
Chip,

The MLB minimum is going up to $380,000 in 2007.

That'll push all of your pe-arbs up a bit.

It is? I thought it was going to stay the same. Either way it's only going to be about $100K more.


Also, as M2 said, Jr.'s salary isn't "really" $12.5MM. At the time of the deal, published reports said its net present value was $9.2-9.3MM annually.

True. But they are spending $12.5M for him every year. Now whether all of it or some of it is going to him shouldn't matter. He may be receiving $9M but $3M from the Reds' coffers is going somewhere.

As I said, these figures have Kyle Lohse making $5M with us next year. Lop that off and we're down to $61M.

Roy Tucker
11-27-2006, 04:28 PM
John Fay doesn't have a clue period.


I fixed your post for you pedro.

Ltlabner
11-27-2006, 04:31 PM
To put it another way, I'm for solutions both big and small.


As am I, but for a team of our size we need to be far more carefull with the large contracts we do give out. As you say, we can't afford to pull another Milton.

The problem is, as you touched on, there are several holes to be filled. If we spend a wad of dough on a pitcher that doesn't do much for a right handed bat for 1B. If we sign a big bat we're still running Milton, Loshe and The Lizzard out as #3, #4 and #5. That's why they need to perform a ballencing act with the options available via FA and trade. I think the early activity signals they are willing to make moves and the quietness since signals they are playing out all the scenarios to strech their dollars as far as possible to deal with starting pitching, a big bat, etc.

I guess after the number of Miltons we've pulled I'm snakebit about another large flashy FA contract. Especially in this seemingly wacky market.

terminator
11-27-2006, 04:36 PM
The Reds will not win next year unless they do serious damage to their long-term prospects IMHO.

Look at the ways we can try to improve for 2007:

#1 -- Free Agency. To improve via free agency, they will need to spend tens of millions of dollars. Even if that plugged all of the holes it would saddle us with a lot of long-term contracts and judging by our history and MLB history, most long-term contracts seem to do more harm than good. Looking at successful small market teams, they are not succeeding with expensive long-term contracts.

#2 -- Trades. To improve for 2007 via trade, there are only really two options: (1) trade current MLB players for MLB players or (2) trade away minor leaguers in exchange for MLB players.

In the former case, it's hard to pick up value because GMs don't make lopsided trades as a matter of course since MLB players have realtively known values. You give up a hitter to get a pitcher. Or you give up a great hitter to get a decent pitcher and a decent hitter. But we don't have the depth of good players needed to make those kinds of trade -- we have offensive and defensive needs. A year ago we had a logjam in the outfield with Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, Pena and Freel (and Deno). We don't have that kind of depth anywhere now. Whether you get a lopsided deal is usually more a matter of luck.

In the latter case, we mortgage our future by trading away our minor leaguers for MLB ready players. I think we can all agree that would be a catastrophe for the Reds.

#3 -- Rule 5 draft. Not too many difference making players come from this.

#4 -- Waiver pickups (or very "minor" trades that are essentially the same thing). Krivsky has done well with this with Phillips and Ross. This has been a good avenue for him, but it's pretty hard to make up the run differential the Reds have with these type of players.

#5 -- Minor Leaguers. We call up our minor league players and let them begin developing and hope they catch on fire right away.

Maybe I'm overlooking other avenues, but I don't see any combination of the above available options shaping us into a contender in 2007. Krivsky is doing what he can slowly and deliberately. We don't have the dollars for #1, we don't have the stockpile or logjam of talent needed for #2, #3 wouldn't make the difference, #4 he's done pretty well and that leaves #5.

If the front office wants to win in 2007 I think the boldest move they can make would be to put Bailey in the rotation in 2007 on a pitch count and slotted as the #5 starter. That's what I personally would like to see. Either he makes a difference and we get an ace or more likely he spends his time learning to pitch and getting his first year of MLB experience out of the way when it isn't critical to us. If you look at most star pitchers, it takes them a year or so to reach above-average status, so I'd get that process started now. Worst case, it couldn't be any worse watching him as our #5 starter in 2007 than the guys we had out there in 2006. With a pitch count and the extra days off when slotted as the #5 starter his injury risk would be reasonable.

Falls City Beer
11-27-2006, 04:40 PM
The Reds will not win next year unless they do serious damage to their long-term prospects IMHO.

Look at the ways we can try to improve for 2007:

#1 -- Free Agency. To improve via free agency, they will need to spend tens of millions of dollars. Even if that plugged all of the holes it would saddle us with a lot of long-term contracts and judging by our history and MLB history, most long-term contracts seem to do more harm than good. Looking at successful small market teams, they are not succeeding with expensive long-term contracts.

#2 -- Trades. To improve for 2007 via trade, there are only really two options: (1) trade current MLB players for MLB players or (2) trade away minor leaguers in exchange for MLB players.

In the former case, it's hard to pick up value because GMs don't make lopsided trades as a matter of course since MLB players have realtively known values. You give up a hitter to get a pitcher. Or you give up a great hitter to get a decent pitcher and a decent hitter. But we don't have the depth of good players needed to make those kinds of trade -- we have offensive and defensive needs. A year ago we had a logjam in the outfield with Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, Pena and Freel (and Deno). We don't have that kind of depth anywhere now. Whether you get a lopsided deal is usually more a matter of luck.

In the latter case, we mortgage our future by trading away our minor leaguers for MLB ready players. I think we can all agree that would be a catastrophe for the Reds.

#3 -- Rule 5 draft. Not too many difference making players come from this.

#4 -- Waiver pickups (or very "minor" trades that are essentially the same thing). Krivsky has done well with this with Phillips and Ross. This has been a good avenue for him, but it's pretty hard to make up the run differential the Reds have with these type of players.

#5 -- Minor Leaguers. We call up our minor league players and let them begin developing and hope they catch on fire right away.

Maybe I'm overlooking other avenues, but I don't see any combination of the above available options shaping us into a contender in 2007. Krivsky is doing what he can slowly and deliberately. We don't have the dollars for #1, we don't have the stockpile or logjam of talent needed for #2, #3 wouldn't make the difference, #4 he's done pretty well and that leaves #5.

If the front office wants to win in 2007 I think the boldest move they can make would be to put Bailey in the rotation in 2007 on a pitch count and slotted as the #5 starter. That's what I personally would like to see. Either he makes a difference and we get an ace or more likely he spends his time learning to pitch and getting his first year of MLB experience out of the way when it isn't critical to us. If you look at most star pitchers, it takes them a year or so to reach above-average status, so I'd get that process started now. Worst case, it couldn't be any worse watching him as our #5 starter in 2007 than the guys we had out there in 2006. With a pitch count and the extra days off when slotted as the #5 starter his injury risk would be reasonable.


I agree with the bulk of your post. But I think good GMs win trades fairly often--I only disagree with you on that point.

Spring~Fields
11-27-2006, 04:45 PM
If Fay and Chips numbers are within close proximity and if the payroll ceiling was budgeted for the speculated 70 million figure then there is not a lot of room left to make changes except for the trade route.

The trade route has Krivsky with limited trading chips to acquire pitching with, and without improved additional starting pitching the Reds well, we have seen what happens there. He also needs to improve the run differential. It just doesn’t look like K has the resources.

IslandRed
11-27-2006, 04:45 PM
But they are spending $12.5M for him every year.

Not really. He gets $6 million per season and the other $6.5 million is deferred, with the deferred money paid out over 16 years. Using annuities and such, the Reds don't have to put away $6.5 million in cash today to pay $6.5 million years later. I've seen the annual present value of the contract estimated anywhere from $9.2 to $10.5 million, no one seems to know for sure (and it's probably not possible to know without knowing exactly how the money is being invested).

Caveat Emperor
11-27-2006, 07:10 PM
If Fay and Chips numbers are within close proximity and if the payroll ceiling was budgeted for the speculated 70 million figure then there is not a lot of room left to make changes except for the trade route.

I think even assuming that $70 million is a ceiling, what with the additional revenues coming to teams this year, is a mistake.

Spring~Fields
11-27-2006, 08:15 PM
I think even assuming that $70 million is a ceiling, what with the additional revenues coming to teams this year, is a mistake.

I would not be surprised if you were right.

Even if it is $80 million dollars there is not a lot of room to manipulate at todays prices.