PDA

View Full Version : Would you want to play here....?



red-in-la
12-18-2008, 04:28 PM
Makr Sheldon / MLB.COM

After non-tendering Hopper on Friday night, the Reds re-signed him on Saturday. The point of the move was to get a better financial arrangement for the club. Although his Major League salary won't likely increase much beyond the $402,000 he made last season, his Triple-A salary would have been near $280,000 if he were sent down. With Hopper having three options remaining and last season's setback as history, the Reds sought to lower that price tag by non-tendering.

WHY would ANY player of any substantial talent ever want to play for this organization? I mean really......are the Reds the Ebeneezer Scrooge of baseball or what?

Raisor
12-18-2008, 04:29 PM
Hopper didn't have to resign if he thought he could get more elsewhere.

redsfan4445
12-18-2008, 04:41 PM
I would in a heartbeat!!! I have beeen a Reds fan since 1972. as a kid dreamed of playing for them, just never was in the rigth spot at the right time growing up playing baseball.

Chip R
12-18-2008, 04:42 PM
WHY would ANY player of any substantial talent ever want to play for this organization? I mean really......are the Reds the Ebeneezer Scrooge of baseball or what?


Jr., Dunn, Milton, Phillips, Arroyo, Harang, Gonzo, et. al. would probably tell you otherwise.

RedEye
12-18-2008, 04:45 PM
I think that for pitchers, all other things being equal, the park dimensions have to be a concern. And for offensive players, probably the opposite.

red-in-la
12-18-2008, 06:11 PM
Jr., Dunn, Milton, Phillips, Arroyo, Harang, Gonzo, et. al. would probably tell you otherwise.

I meant those with a free choice.....not those traded here and re-signed.

Of course, re-signing is essentially the same thing, except that these players re-signed without being free agents.

When I saw this, I thought of Mike Brown......ouch.....:bash:

Raisor
12-18-2008, 06:18 PM
I meant those with a free choice.....not those traded here and re-signed.

Of course, re-signing is essentially the same thing, except that these players re-signed without being free agents.

When I saw this, I thought of Mike Brown......ouch.....:bash:

Hopper re-signed the next day. If he/agent thought they could have gotten more, then they could have waited.

They didn't.

Benihana
12-18-2008, 06:53 PM
This happens all the time with every team, especially with players coming off a serious injury. The Brewers just did the same thing with Chris Capuano. There are many complaints that can be made about the club, I just don't think this is a good example.

RedsManRick
12-18-2008, 06:57 PM
If I weren't from Ohio, I would have no interest in playing in Cincinnati.

However, what the Reds did with Hopper was only logical. I would not want to be with an organization that made stupid business decisions either.

Danny Serafini
12-18-2008, 08:40 PM
Every single team in the Majors would've done the same thing. It's a business first, and the players all know that.

15fan
12-18-2008, 08:54 PM
30 MLB teams X 40 man rosters = 1,200 spots on the 40 man.

25 man rosters during the season whittles that number down to 750 MLB roster spots eligible to play in The Show on any given day.

That's it.

It's not like getting a job at McDonalds or at a gas station. Those are everywhere.

If you want a MLB paycheck and a shot at playing time, you don't always get to dictate the terms...

RANDY IN INDY
12-19-2008, 08:28 AM
If I would've had the talent, I would have played for the Reds, or any other MLB team, in a heartbeat.

dfs
12-19-2008, 08:54 AM
If you want a MLB paycheck and a shot at playing time, you don't always get to dictate the terms...
And that's why outfielders would want to sign with the reds.

They have to send SOMEBODY out there to the outfield.

Even if they do sign guy and stick him in front of you on the depth chart. Players get injured all the time. Some dude gets in a fight or slides the wrong way and you've got yourself 200 at bats to show what you can do.

Always Red
12-19-2008, 09:02 AM
If I were an outfielder with power, I'd sign with the Reds in a heartbeat. The Reds have better pitching than they have had in some time, and any OF with pop will love playing in GABP.

As was pointed out to me last week in another thread, saving even 50k on a move can be a big deal, and might have even paid for the Reds expenses of going to the Winter meeting, for example,

redsmetz
12-19-2008, 09:29 AM
I think it's important to note that this action by the club had to do with Norris Hopper, one candidate of many for the 25th man on the club. The 400K or so he'll make on the big league club is not a bad amount to play a game. The $150K to $200K, he'll earn in the minors ain't bad either.

I'm just reiterating what others have already said. This happens all of the time by every single club. Hopper wasn't the only ML player who resigned with his previous club. The rules presently (and I'm not necessarily disagree with them) makes moves like this common place. As others noted, Hopper was free to find work elsewhere (and I'm not saying that coldly, just the fact). He'll be making decent money for a job that's three quarters of the year (and he'd do well to budget based on the minor league salary - everything else is gravy).

Perhaps the larger point is that what happens to the 20th to 25th roster spots will in no way affect how other free agents see this part of the business.

Chip R
12-19-2008, 09:30 AM
I meant those with a free choice.....not those traded here and re-signed.

Of course, re-signing is essentially the same thing, except that these players re-signed without being free agents.

When I saw this, I thought of Mike Brown......ouch.....:bash:


Most of those guys could have decided not to re-sign. Gonzo and Milton certainly didn't have to come here. Corey Patterson was given $3M last year when no one else wanted him.

REDREAD
12-19-2008, 09:52 AM
Jr., Dunn, Milton, Phillips, Arroyo, Harang, Gonzo, et. al. would probably tell you otherwise.

Other than Jr, those guys all got pretty sweat deals.

Harang, Phillips, and Dunn all got their first multiyear guaranteed deals that make them set for life. Arroyo had a below market deal and was rewarded with an extension that put him at about market rate (if not slightly higher).

Milton and Gonzo laughed all the way to the bank, because no other team would've been stupid enough to give them 3 years and that much $$$.
Likewise with Cordero (4 years).

It's no big deal to do that to Hopper. He and the Reds probably know he's destined to be a journeyman at best. He's probably just happy to have a job.

What gets me is when the Reds used to pull stuff like that with their front line players, like taking Casey to arb over 100k, etc.

Chip R
12-19-2008, 10:10 AM
Other than Jr, those guys all got pretty sweat deals.

Harang, Phillips, and Dunn all got their first multiyear guaranteed deals that make them set for life. Arroyo had a below market deal and was rewarded with an extension that put him at about market rate (if not slightly higher).

Milton and Gonzo laughed all the way to the bank, because no other team would've been stupid enough to give them 3 years and that much $$$.
Likewise with Cordero (4 years).

It's no big deal to do that to Hopper. He and the Reds probably know he's destined to be a journeyman at best. He's probably just happy to have a job.

What gets me is when the Reds used to pull stuff like that with their front line players, like taking Casey to arb over 100k, etc.


And that's my point. The Reds are very generous with players - sometimes to a fault. Most of those guys were and are being paid very handsomely to play here and they had options to go elsewhere. Re: Hopper, the Reds didn't have to re-sign him at all. They could have released him right before Christmas and had him go out looking for another team. They chose to bring him back.

Yeah, they went to arbitration with Casey for $125K. That's ancient history. Casey isn't here anymore and pretty much no one else is either. They haven't gone to arbitration with anyone for a long, long time.

redsmetz
12-19-2008, 10:34 AM
Milton and Gonzo laughed all the way to the bank, because no other team would've been stupid enough to give them 3 years and that much $$$.
Likewise with Cordero (4 years).

I have no issue with Milton, although the guy was a stand up guy in not making excuses for his poor performance. But I digress.

I am among those who never believed the Gonzalez contract was a bad contract. It made sense at the time in taking care of a gap in our development system and was not an unreasonable amount. The problem with the Gonzalez deal is the unfortunate problem with his son and then his injury that, at least for now, looks like it's made him unable to play. Those things happen, but it's not a reflection of the contract itself.

I think the same goes for Cordero. I don't have a problem with arguing that the Reds signing Cordero was a luxury a team in our position shouldn't have taken on, given other pressing needs. And I don't have a problem with questioning the length, but I don't see Cordero being some bum that's getting away and not pulling his weight.

I think sometimes we use too broad a brush here at RZ. Things are generally more complex than we address, IMO.

RANDY IN INDY
12-19-2008, 10:40 AM
I think sometimes we use too broad a brush here at RZ. Things are generally more complex than we address, IMO.

Ya think?:thumbup:

westofyou
12-19-2008, 10:40 AM
"Players sometimes go where they feel that they, and their families, will be happiest over the long term. And they end up winning there, too,"

Stan Kasten

Stan once signed free agent Greg Maddux in Atlanta when the Yankees were actually offering more.

WMR
12-19-2008, 10:42 AM
WHY would ANY player of any substantial talent ever want to play for this organization? I mean really......are the Reds the Ebeneezer Scrooge of baseball or what?

So the Reds should just give Hopper more than fair market value out of the goodness of their hearts?

Have you ever run a business and, if so, would you run YOUR business in that fashion?

westofyou
12-19-2008, 10:48 AM
I have no issue with Milton, although the guy was a stand up guy in not making excuses for his poor performance. But I digress.

I am among those who never believed the Gonzalez contract was a bad contract. It made sense at the time in taking care of a gap in our development system and was not an unreasonable amount. The problem with the Gonzalez deal is the unfortunate problem with his son and then his injury that, at least for now, looks like it's made him unable to play. Those things happen, but it's not a reflection of the contract itself.

I think the same goes for Cordero. I don't have a problem with arguing that the Reds signing Cordero was a luxury a team in our position shouldn't have taken on, given other pressing needs. And I don't have a problem with questioning the length, but I don't see Cordero being some bum that's getting away and not pulling his weight.

I think sometimes we use too broad a brush here at RZ. Things are generally more complex than we address, IMO.

I don't think they over payed for Gonzalez, the payout terms are what stinks ( accelerating salary) Both Milton and Gonzalez were sought after by other teams.

BP wrote this about Alex, who if we all remember was filling a LARGE hole on a team that had no other options, and as they say if you are chasing a SS outside of your organization the options are always costly and scarce.


and Alex Gonzalez, among others.

That last contract caught my eye, because Gonzalez was one of the top names on my list of "stealth" free agents. Carlos Lee, Barry Zito, Jason Schmidt and their ilk will be chased furiously, and compensated wildly when finally caught. In many years, however, the best deals come at the lower end of the market, low-profile contracts signed with low-profile players who return more than they make.

Now, the amount of money floating around will mean that even these deals have a tinge of overpaying to them. The Gonzalez deal is among them; when I added him to my stealth list, I figured he’d come in on a one-year deal, maybe a two-year deal for $3 million or $4 million per. Gonzalez actually agreed to a three-year, $14-million deal with the Reds, per ESPN.com. The length and the money reflect the current market, which has more money available than players.

So what makes Gonzalez a good stealth signing? After all, he has been above a .300 OBP as many times as he's below that mark, and he’s coming off his third straight year with a sub-700 OPS. That anemic bat wouldn’t seem to make him a good choice as any kind of free agent, much less one to praise.

Gonzalez, however, is one of the top defensive shortstops in the game. While his numbers in Clay Davenport's system don't look good, Gonzalez consistently ranks among the top glove men in play-by-play systems or zone-based ones, such as the work of Mitchel Lichtman or Chris Dial. With the PBP systems largely in agreement on his value, I take those numbers more seriously than the Davenport ones. Gonzalez's defensive prowess elevates him from a replacement-level player to a slightly-below-average one, more than worth just shy of $5 million per season. He's one of the few players in the game whose defense really does make up for his offense.

Gonzalez may have a greater opportunity to help the Reds than he would on a normal team, too. The Reds don't have a strikeout staff (11th in the NL last year), and in particular, their bullpen is loaded with groundball guys. Gonzalez should help shore up a defense that has been among the worst in the game the past few years. The Reds still look to have major problems with outfield defense—and this signing is another reminder that the Reds no longer have Felipe Lopez at shortstop—but Gonzalez is a better player than his raw numbers indicate and should make them better in '07.

red-in-la
12-19-2008, 12:43 PM
So the Reds should just give Hopper more than fair market value out of the goodness of their hearts?

Have you ever run a business and, if so, would you run YOUR business in that fashion?

Yes I have.....and you don't pull this kind of stuff with ANY employee.

It is a matter of scale.....which is the point I don't seem to be getting across.

In a business where you pay your 25 employees 70 million dollars for 6 months work, you fo not put one of them through this process over a few thousand dollars.

When Scrooge paid his clerk 15 copies of his christian name he was cheap.....but Bob Cratchet was rich compared to the many homelsss of the time. It is a matter of scale.

Benihana
12-19-2008, 12:45 PM
Yes I have.....and you don't pull this kind of stuff with ANY employee.

It is a matter of scale.....which is the point I don't seem to be getting across.

In a business where you pay your 25 employees 70 million dollars for 6 months work, you fo not put one of them through this process over a few thousand dollars.

When Scrooge paid his clerk 15 copies of his christian name he was cheap.....but Bob Cratchet was rich compared to the many homelsss of the time. It is a matter of scale.

Still disagree. I don't even think Hopper is particularly upset (if he was he would have at least attempted to find work elsewhere, rather than re-signing the next day.)

Always Red
12-19-2008, 01:30 PM
Yes I have.....and you don't pull this kind of stuff with ANY employee.

It is a matter of scale.....which is the point I don't seem to be getting across.

In a business where you pay your 25 employees 70 million dollars for 6 months work, you fo not put one of them through this process over a few thousand dollars.

When Scrooge paid his clerk 15 copies of his christian name he was cheap.....but Bob Cratchet was rich compared to the many homelsss of the time. It is a matter of scale.

I run a business too, as do many here. All employees are not equal. Your most valuable employees will get the most pay, the best perks and command the most respect. They also have leverage that other employees do not have.

Obviously, as a business owner, you want to treat all of your employees well and fairly, but not necessarily equally. The least qualified and freshly hired understand this. If not, it is explained to them by others just up the rung from their pay scale.

Also, as an owner, my pay has gone down the last two years, while my employees have not. In fact the best of them have earned raises. So, me and my business partner are interested in saving money wherever we can.

Norris Hopper falls into this category (least qualified), and it is my belief that he does not need to have it explained to him. I think he is probably very happy to still be employed in his chosen profession.

The Reds have chosen in this case to save $ on a 25th/26th player, rather than scrimping on pitching, for example. I think they made a wise business decision.

Highlifeman21
12-19-2008, 07:28 PM
So the Reds should just give Hopper more than fair market value out of the goodness of their hearts?

Have you ever run a business and, if so, would you run YOUR business in that fashion?

Hopper should be thankfully he's making any money playing professional baseball.

Period.

WMR
12-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Hopper should be thankful he's making any money playing professional baseball.

Period.

That's what I'm typing.