PDA

View Full Version : Castellini = Worst Reds Owner?



ChatterRed
04-27-2009, 11:43 PM
Man oh man. Cordero may have blown the 9th inning but it's really looking like the pitching overall is going to be pretty good and ownership didn't step up to the table in terms of the offense. What a shame.

CarolinaRedleg
04-27-2009, 11:49 PM
Carl Lindner can't believe the title of this thread.

mroby85
04-27-2009, 11:57 PM
Yeah, they shouldve gotten a right hand bat, but Lindner was hands down worse, he had no clue, and didn't care.

EDDIEGGG27
04-28-2009, 12:07 AM
We could trade Cordero to the Yankees and free up 36 mill for the next 3 years and then we could get a RH bat and put Weathers as closer.

jimbo
04-28-2009, 12:12 AM
Cordero wasn't the problem tonight. He gave up one hard hit, along with a bloop single, ground ball single, and a fly ball sacrifice. It happens.

The Reds lost because they couldn't score runs. Cordero will be just fine.

bgwilly31
04-28-2009, 12:48 AM
We could trade Cordero to the Yankees and free up 36 mill for the next 3 years and then we could get a RH bat and put Weathers as closer.

i would be ok with that.

Griffey012
04-28-2009, 01:20 AM
Man oh man. Cordero may have blown the 9th inning but it's really looking like the pitching overall is going to be pretty good and ownership didn't step up to the table in terms of the offense. What a shame.

We are currently 10-9 with BPhil and Ede batting below or around .200. Also, it is not completely in the hands of Castellini to get the big bat. Obviously we weren't gonna sign Texieria. With a young team, a new foundation, I would say it was wise to not pull a blockbuster or spend big bucks on a big bat. I'll say it now and say it again, if we position ourselves to make a run, we will make a move for a big LF bat when they become available.

The rest of the moves of the offseason so far with the exception or resigning Lincoln are proving to be great moves.

Handofdeath
04-28-2009, 01:45 AM
I think Lindner is the worst Reds owner by far. He has Jack McKeon who leads the Reds to a Win-Loss Pct. of .529 and gets canned. At least Castellini was willing to spend money on a good closer instead of throwing it at the likes of Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz. Is Cordero overpaid? Yes. Has he proven to be a very good closer? The answer is yes.

Redlegs
04-28-2009, 03:39 AM
Castellini is a very good owner who wants to win. He wants to do it the right way, however, and this takes a little time. At least he has a game plan. This is an exciting YOUNG team to watch and from all accounts the minors are stocked with talent.

dunner13
04-28-2009, 09:26 AM
I think we have a great owner, lets not forget the fear that was running through baseball this offseason about how much money the teams were going to lose this year. No one besides the yankees wanted to spend money. Cast has brought in a proven manager and a proven GM, like them or not you do have to admit he went after guys who have done it before not the bob boones of the world. If we are at or over .500 come july I have no doubt that you will see cast give the green light for jocketty to add whatever we need to get us in the playoffs.

Ghosts of 1990
04-28-2009, 10:12 AM
Lindner amd schott easily were the worst.

I think a history lesson is in order. Read: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1008139/index.htm

ChatterRed
04-28-2009, 10:24 AM
Cordero wasn't the problem tonight. He gave up one hard hit, along with a bloop single, ground ball single, and a fly ball sacrifice. It happens.

The Reds lost because they couldn't score runs. Cordero will be just fine.

Pretty much what I said.

1. I'd trade Cordero to the Yanks, to both unload his salary, and get a RH bat. By the way, I like Cordero and this has nothing to do with last night. He has pitched very well so far this season.

2. Trade Bailey and Phillips (and possibly more) to the Rangers for Ian Kinsler.

Instant offense. No loss of starting pitching (Bailey doesn't count). No real damage to the bullpen because I believe we can do bullpen by committee and bring up Roenicke.

If this team doesn't start putting some runs on the board, it's going to get ugly. And you saw it last night. As long as EE and BP don't hit, opponents are going to bypass Votto and Bruce to get to those other two. It is about to start killing us. And the other thing that will happen, is when Bruce and Votto stop seeing good pitches, they'll start swinging at bad ones.

I'd make a move right now including bringing up Rosales. He may not be the long term answer..........but then again, he might. That's how Sabo got his shot.

Bumstead
04-28-2009, 10:29 AM
I think Castellini has done a fine job. We are building a team rather than going out to try to make a 1-year run. It's been almost 15 years, one more year isn't that much longer. A little patience...yeah, yeah, yeah...a little patience.

Just looking at these posts, it looks like the real problem occurs when JayBruce32 goes to the games!! We are 10-6 without him there! :p:

hehe

Bum

ChatterRed
04-28-2009, 10:31 AM
Lindner amd schott easily were the worst.

I think a history lesson is in order. Read: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1008139/index.htm

Were you alive in 1990? The team won a World Championship. May have been a loony and ripped the farm system apart, but she atleast won it all, and allowed management to pick up and sign some key pieces to the puzzle. Otherwise, she was definitely a knucklehead.

Lindner was a poor owner. I agree.

But what has Castellini done? If I give him props for anything, it is rebuilding the farm system. Otherwise, the major league record speaks for itself.

ChatterRed
04-28-2009, 10:32 AM
I've been one of the people preaching patience for a couple of years now.

But I'll admit at this point, I'm frustrated. I see a team, that if it had 2 more bats, that would probably be in first place. We have a top 10 pitching staff. Incredible.

Eric_the_Red
04-28-2009, 11:21 AM
Sure, Marge won in 1990, but what she did to the farm system set the franchise back. Unless she was going to keep bumping up the payroll to compete with the large market organizations for free agents, the team would be in dire straights.

Castellini has the organization moving in the right direction. The team is younger, and the talent is deeper than when he took over. And that progress is starting to show on the field.

Until the team no longer appears to be moving forward, I think this thread is ridiculous.

freestyle55
04-28-2009, 11:51 AM
Pretty much what I said.

1. I'd trade Cordero to the Yanks, to both unload his salary, and get a RH bat. By the way, I like Cordero and this has nothing to do with last night. He has pitched very well so far this season.

2. Trade Bailey and Phillips (and possibly more) to the Rangers for Ian Kinsler.

Instant offense. No loss of starting pitching (Bailey doesn't count). No real damage to the bullpen because I believe we can do bullpen by committee and bring up Roenicke.

If this team doesn't start putting some runs on the board, it's going to get ugly. And you saw it last night. As long as EE and BP don't hit, opponents are going to bypass Votto and Bruce to get to those other two. It is about to start killing us. And the other thing that will happen, is when Bruce and Votto stop seeing good pitches, they'll start swinging at bad ones.

I'd make a move right now including bringing up Rosales. He may not be the long term answer..........but then again, he might. That's how Sabo got his shot.

Why would the Yankees want to take on $36 million on a reliever AND give up someone of value? Yes their bullpen is hurting, but they can go buy off cheaper and better options than Cordero, plus he's been very good this year with the exception of one night. What RH bat do you think they're going to give you? no one wants that contract...

And why would the Rangers trade one of their best players for a downgrade at 2nd base and a pitcher who has never put it together yet...plus more is going to have to be a LOT more than that...

Ghosts of 1990
04-28-2009, 11:52 AM
Were you alive in 1990? The team won a World Championship. May have been a loony and ripped the farm system apart, but she atleast won it all, and allowed management to pick up and sign some key pieces to the puzzle. Otherwise, she was definitely a knucklehead.

Lindner was a poor owner. I agree.

But what has Castellini done? If I give him props for anything, it is rebuilding the farm system. Otherwise, the major league record speaks for itself.

Yeah I was alive in 1990.

I'm fully aware that we had great successful teams in 1990, 1995, and 1999 whilst Marge Schott was owner of the team. Those teams won in spite of her ownership. Those teams must have really been loaded talent wise because Marge did nothing but drag the organization when you learn about what she did to our scouting system, front office employees, and even how she treated the players and families themselves.

ChatterRed
04-28-2009, 12:56 PM
Good to see so many posters happy with this offense. I guess you got what you wanted and deserved.

Bumstead
04-28-2009, 01:02 PM
I don't think anyone said that they were happy with this offense. However, I believe that people think that Castellini has the team going in the right direction. I also believe that people think it's a little nuts to say Castellini is the Reds worst owner, based on the Ownership that he has followed.

Bum

Eric_the_Red
04-28-2009, 01:04 PM
Good to see so many posters happy with this offense. I guess you got what you wanted and deserved.


Where do you "see" that?

Personally I am happy with the direction of the team and organization. The offense needs improvement and the pitching needs more consistency. But overall I like this year's club better than last years, and last years better than the year before.

EDDIEGGG27
04-28-2009, 01:47 PM
Why would the Yankees want to take on $36 million on a reliever AND give up someone of value? Yes their bullpen is hurting, but they can go buy off cheaper and better options than Cordero, plus he's been very good this year with the exception of one night. What RH bat do you think they're going to give you? no one wants that contract...

And why would the Rangers trade one of their best players for a downgrade at 2nd base and a pitcher who has never put it together yet...plus more is going to have to be a LOT more than that...


I was saying give Cordero to the Yankees for basically nothing and that frees up all that money so you can get a bat somewhere else.

BurgervilleBuck
04-28-2009, 01:55 PM
Those teams must have really been loaded talent wise because Marge did nothing but drag the organization when you learn about what she did to our scouting system, front office employees, and even how she treated the players and families themselves.
And let's not forget her behavior during Opening Day 1996.

chettt
04-28-2009, 01:57 PM
Count me in on the side of Castillini. I'm not totally happy with everything about this team but I'm happy with the direction of the team. This team has a future. We couldn't say that for the last few years. I have followed this team since 1963 through thick and thin and will continue to do so. Maybe, some of the posters should decide which MLB team has the best ownership and jump on their bandwagon.

BurgervilleBuck
04-28-2009, 02:07 PM
Count me in on the Castellini bandwagon. He's been impatient at times, sure, but he's a fan like the rest of us.

What we're going through now just makes us a better team in the future.

Ghosts of 1990
04-28-2009, 03:13 PM
Good to see so many posters happy with this offense. I guess you got what you wanted and deserved.

Now wait a second man. I didn't say anything about my feelings on this year's team. There is no doubt that ownership got cheap on us and took the short cut and its affecting the on field play, specifically the offense.

But to say that makes Castellini group worse then Lindner and Marge Schott is just living at the moment too much. Those two make Castellini look like Steinbrenner in terms of a spendthrift.

This regime is going about things very carefully. I'll stack them up to Carl and Marge when their time is done or at least in like 2012 when the shark will have jumped on us competing.

ChatterRed
04-28-2009, 04:23 PM
Now wait a second man. I didn't say anything about my feelings on this year's team. There is no doubt that ownership got cheap on us and took the short cut and its affecting the on field play, specifically the offense.

But to say that makes Castellini group worse then Lindner and Marge Schott is just living at the moment too much. Those two make Castellini look like Steinbrenner in terms of a spendthrift.

This regime is going about things very carefully. I'll stack them up to Carl and Marge when their time is done or at least in like 2012 when the shark will have jumped on us competing.

I've been really happy with Jocketty. I have been proclaiming loudly my love for the patience and development of our new revamped farm system.

I just see a missed opportunity in having not signed a RH bat in the offseason. And it's very clear I'm ticked about it. This team finally has the pitching and ownership blows it and doesn't get them the hitting.

Eric_the_Red
04-28-2009, 05:01 PM
I've been really happy with Jocketty. I have been proclaiming loudly my love for the patience and development of our new revamped farm system.

I just see a missed opportunity in having not signed a RH bat in the offseason. And it's very clear I'm ticked about it. This team finally has the pitching and ownership blows it and doesn't get them the hitting.


So let me get this straight....you've watched the Reds this year and think that ONE bat in the lineup would be the difference between a poor year and being World Series contenders?

Pick one struggling player to replace with that bat:
The LF platoon (Hairston/Dickerson/Nix/McDonald)
EE
AGon
Phillip
R Hernandez

Then realize the other 4 would still be in the lineup. IMO, one RH bat would not transform this team overnight. Unless the group above starts collectively hitting, we could sign Babe Ruth and still struggle. Other teams would just pitch around him to get to the next guy.

bounty37h
04-28-2009, 05:22 PM
I odnt know that one bat wil get us in the series, but one bat would def help! I like it in the LF spot,, ya know EE, BPhil, and Hernandez (I still think he stinks as a catcher, but thats another post)are going to start hitting at least a little better at some point soon, but sut dont see much hope out of LF so far, and CD hasnt impressed me with his glove either so far this season.

ChatterRed
04-28-2009, 05:30 PM
So let me get this straight....you've watched the Reds this year and think that ONE bat in the lineup would be the difference between a poor year and being World Series contenders?

Pick one struggling player to replace with that bat:
The LF platoon (Hairston/Dickerson/Nix/McDonald)
EE
AGon
Phillip
R Hernandez

Then realize the other 4 would still be in the lineup. IMO, one RH bat would not transform this team overnight. Unless the group above starts collectively hitting, we could sign Babe Ruth and still struggle. Other teams would just pitch around him to get to the next guy.

Actually, we need 2 more bats. :beerme:

Hey Meat
04-28-2009, 05:49 PM
We could trade Cordero to the Yankees and free up 36 mill for the next 3 years and then we could get a RH bat and put Weathers as closer.

Ha Ha Ha. Your sarcasm is killing me. Didn't we try closer by committee a few years back?

improbus
04-28-2009, 05:59 PM
The Reds payroll has jumped $13 million since Castellini took over. Don't say that he hasn't spent the money.

kfm
04-28-2009, 07:44 PM
Sure, Marge won in 1990, but what she did to the farm system set the franchise back. Unless she was going to keep bumping up the payroll to compete with the large market organizations for free agents, the team would be in dire straights.

Castellini has the organization moving in the right direction. The team is younger, and the talent is deeper than when he took over. And that progress is starting to show on the field.

Until the team no longer appears to be moving forward, I think this thread is ridiculous.

Could not agree more. This is a great post. Marge ruined the reds for many years to come. Who knows how much they could have won if she recognized that scouts are more than "guys who just sit around watching baseball all day" (not an exact quote but on point). What they are doing today and have been the last couple of years will allow them to have success like other so called small market teams who aren't supposed to win. Is this a serious thread, or is this an attempt to out do the ridiculous Micah Owings thread?

Chris Sabowned
04-28-2009, 07:56 PM
This is a ridiculous thread. I think B-Cast is doing a fine job. He has us on the right track.

improbus
04-28-2009, 09:55 PM
If this were the old pre-Castellini Reds, they would have traded Alonso for someone like Jay Payton and signed Carl Pavano. I am really starting to hate this offense but I still like the direction.

Slyder
04-28-2009, 10:50 PM
I was probably among the most critical of the offseason moves. But I have to defend Castinelli. Not neccessarily for the roster stuff but for the marketing side. I am in WV there for about a decade-long time period the Reds were non-existant here since Castinelli's group bought the team theyve reached out to areas that were always strong with the Reds to try to get more out of it.

Like here with WV day, the visit from the Reds Caravan, etc has helped this area return to Reds in terms of fan alliance. This area had slipped a bit to the Braves due to TBS and the Braves successes in the 90s. But I am seeing more and more Wishbone C's. Now we just gotta hope that helps rebuild the revenue for the team and we get someone who doesnt jump after "average" hitters and looks for quality in the market and Cast realizes just because a guy has a "name" doesnt make him a good manager :D.

ChatterRed
04-29-2009, 01:52 AM
If this were the old pre-Castellini Reds, they would have traded Alonso for someone like Jay Payton and signed Carl Pavano. I am really starting to hate this offense but I still like the direction.

I will retract the "Worst Reds Owner" part of the thread title. I jumped the gun on that one out of anger and frustration.

BUT........I have been completely in management's corner regarding being patient with the farm system. They have done a good job.

My anger is directed at knowing this team needed a RH bat (or two), stating it publicly as a need that they were going to fill, and then failing to do so.

Meanwhile, the Reds have a top 10 or top 12 pitching staff so far this season, which because of the inability to help the offense, will most likely go to waste and turn a promising season into a mediocre season.

Eric_the_Red
04-29-2009, 07:38 AM
Where would the money for one, let alone two, decent bats come from?

ChatterRed
04-29-2009, 11:05 AM
Ownership.

They can spend more than they are. We let them get away with some pre-decided average payroll. Other small market clubs hit $100 million in payroll. There is no reason the Reds can't.

Eric_the_Red
04-29-2009, 11:18 AM
Ownership.

They can spend more than they are. We let them get away with some pre-decided average payroll. Other small market clubs hit $100 million in payroll. There is no reason the Reds can't.

2008 clubs with $100 mil+ payrolls:
NY Yankees—–209,081,579
Detroit—–138,685,197
New York Mets—–138,293,378
Boston—–133,440,037
Chi.White Sox—–121,152,667
LA Angels—–119,216,333
Chi.Cubs—–118,595,833
LA Dodgers—–118,536,038
Seattle—–117,993,982
Atlanta—–102,424,018
St. Louis—–100,624,450

I don't see too many "small markets" there.

And the way fans "let" ownership dictate payroll is by attendance. Last year St. Louis was 4th...Cincinnati was 23rd.

And some teams like Minnesota, Oakland and Florida seem to remain competitive and make the playoffs often despite not spending money. Money doesn't equal wins....just ask last year's Mariners, Yankees, Tigers, etc.

ChatterRed
04-29-2009, 11:28 AM
2008 clubs with $100 mil+ payrolls:
NY Yankees—–209,081,579
Detroit—–138,685,197
New York Mets—–138,293,378
Boston—–133,440,037
Chi.White Sox—–121,152,667
LA Angels—–119,216,333
Chi.Cubs—–118,595,833
LA Dodgers—–118,536,038
Seattle—–117,993,982
Atlanta—–102,424,018
St. Louis—–100,624,450

I don't see too many "small markets" there.

And the way fans "let" ownership dictate payroll is by attendance. Last year St. Louis was 4th...Cincinnati was 23rd.

And some teams like Minnesota, Oakland and Florida seem to remain competitive and make the playoffs often despite not spending money. Money doesn't equal wins....just ask last year's Mariners, Yankees, Tigers, etc.

.........AND THE WAY OWNERSHIP INCREASES ATTENDANCE is to get a qualified 4-hole hitter/power RH bat.....................duh.

Last year we had Dunn and KGJ.

Dude, I know alot of people who are going to more games this year who are already dissatisfied with management for not bolstering the offense. Attendance will decline because of management's failure. Stop blaming the fans.

Eric_the_Red
04-29-2009, 11:41 AM
So if Dunn was RH then the Reds would draw over 3 million fans and the team would have won the Central?

Again, I'm not happy with the team's offense, but I see the organization as a whole making progress. In a market like Cincinnati, with the economy what it is, and the set-up of MLB, I think throwing big money at one bat would be foolhardy. Remember when Larkin and Junior's contracts made it impossible to improve the team? Those were fun times.

BEETTLEBUG
04-29-2009, 11:52 AM
That is true Eric the Red

Bumstead
04-29-2009, 11:56 AM
Which RH power-hitting LF was going to sign with the Reds? Name him. Burrell basically refused to sign with the Reds (my opinion as there is no way the Reds wouldn't have given him more than he got from TB). Who else that would have made a difference and could have actually been signed (not Manny)?

Bum

ChatterRed
04-29-2009, 01:24 PM
That is true Eric the Red

Not true. Lindner had the money to spend and didn't. His whole desire was to run it as a business and he didn't care much about winning. Therefore they gave KGJ no help whatsoever.

redsfanmia
04-29-2009, 02:08 PM
If this were the old pre-Castellini Reds, they would have traded Alonso for someone like Jay Payton and signed Carl Pavano. I am really starting to hate this offense but I still like the direction.

Actually the pre-Big Bob Reds would have drafted Alonso, then lowballed him and not signed him. I think Big Bob's main problem has been the way he comes off in public, making statements like "we are just not going to lose anymore". Bob is building the franchise for the long haul and should say so then people would not be starting threads like this one.

Eric_the_Red
04-29-2009, 02:27 PM
Not true. Lindner had the money to spend and didn't. His whole desire was to run it as a business and he didn't care much about winning. Therefore they gave KGJ no help whatsoever.


God forbid a business owner not wanting to lose money. That creep.

It's not as much about how much money you spend, but how you spend it. I'll take a savvy GM and give him $85 mil and enjoy more success than giving Jim Bowden $100 mil.

BRM13
04-29-2009, 03:40 PM
So if Dunn was RH then the Reds would draw over 3 million fans and the team would have won the Central?

Again, I'm not happy with the team's offense, but I see the organization as a whole making progress. In a market like Cincinnati, with the economy what it is, and the set-up of MLB, I think throwing big money at one bat would be foolhardy. Remember when Larkin and Junior's contracts made it impossible to improve the team? Those were fun times.

I am pretty sure this is untrue. Just because John Allen believed it or was sent out to say it (both IMO) doesn't make it true. Neither Allen nor Lindner really understood the connection between investing in the team, winning, and then reaping increased revenues. Their actions prove that.

In addition, I had the chance to talk with John Allen about some of these things in the late 90s. He seemed like a nice guy and solid accountant, but he completely did not get the St. Louis model of generating revenue through winning and marketing. He had much more of an increase-profits-by-cutting-costs business model in his head. If that worked, then he'd invest in the team. That is backwards. Almost no competitive business invests after making profits, it invests up front to make profits, then reinvests those profits to make more profits. The key: You have to invest first.

IMHO, John Allen should have been fired for saying Larkin and Griffey tied up the team budget even if he believed it. Larkin and Griffey were the team's two most valuable assets. Blaming them for the front office's inability field a complete team (even if accurate, and it wasn't) made a decent segment of the fan base bitter towards its two most marketable players. Sheer stupidity. Think about what the Reds were saying to us. "Our two best players, the guys most likely to make the HOF, are the reason we can't win. So, when we don't win, you know who to blame." How does that fit in with any sensible marketing strategy? No wonder people have been waiting, literally for years, for KGJ to leave so we could 'start winning'. In recent years the fanbase just dropped Dunn into Larkin's spot in the original John Allen argument. The way Lindner and Allen framed things starting with Larkin's contract extension dug this team a serious marketing hole it still isn't competely out of.

Eric_the_Red
04-29-2009, 04:20 PM
I don't think the Reds organization ever came out and said Larkin & Jr's contracts were why they couldn't compete. That is what I inferred as a fan.

If Lindner set the payroll budget at $X and he decided to sign Larkin for $Y, that left Allen with only the difference to fill out the rest of the team. Hard to blame Allen for that. And I don't blame Lindner for setting a payroll budget. The blame begins when signing players to bad contracts like Larkin's.

Kingspoint
04-29-2009, 06:36 PM
We could trade Cordero to the Yankees and free up 36 mill for the next 3 years and then we could get a RH bat and put Weathers as closer.


Cordero for Cabrera.

BRM13
04-29-2009, 11:13 PM
I don't think the Reds organization ever came out and said Larkin & Jr's contracts were why they couldn't compete. That is what I inferred as a fan.

If Lindner set the payroll budget at $X and he decided to sign Larkin for $Y, that left Allen with only the difference to fill out the rest of the team. Hard to blame Allen for that. And I don't blame Lindner for setting a payroll budget. The blame begins when signing players to bad contracts like Larkin's.

Allen said almost exactly that in public within a week (I recall it being the next day, but I'm too lazy to look it up) of signing Larkin to the extension. Something along the lines of the team can't compete unless we raise ticket prices to pay for Larkin. After that he or others in the front office were clearly saying that to the media (papers, tv, radio) behind the scenes to explain why they didn't do something. And I definitely blame them for setting a budget the way they did it.

I agree that Lindner was ultimately a bigger problem than Allen, but Allen ran the team the same way when he was de facto owner during Marge's suspension.

The problem is this. Linder/Allen say we spent/blew $Y on Larkin so we only have $(X-Y) to buy the rest of the team and that won't buy a good team. Ergo, Larkin's salary is the problem. That sounds right but it is really a cop out and foolish business. If $(X-Y) buys you a 75 win team and a 75 win team generates a $4 million dollar net loss you would be better off going over the budget by $5 million if you could win enough games to reduce your net loss. For example, suppose you spent $5 million cleverly and won 84 games. At 84 wins the team is in the wild card until mid/late August (or later some years) and maybe has a net (of the extra $5 million) loss of $2 million. Losing $2 million sounds bad, but losing $2 million instead of $4 million is smart business.

But, the front office tells us the budget is $X and we can't be better because there isn't enough money to left to buy a good team. They ignore the revenue increase associated with winning more games. In business the $Y spent on Larkin is a sunk cost. Good or bad the money is gone. Decisions going forward have to be made at the margin. Will spending this dollar generate more than a dollar or not? If yes, spend it. The budget should be dynamic, not fixed; it should respond to opportunities. To be charitable, the Reds under Lindner and Allen were not very dynamic.

The only exception was trading for Griffey. But in hindsight, given the way they didn't develop the team around him, that looks more like a charitable contribution to the city than a dynamic, forward looking strategic move. Lindner endows things all over town, including for a while a HOF outfielder. Griffey was just another thing Carl Lindner bought for the city, the acquisition wasn't wasn't part of some plan.

DTCromer
04-29-2009, 11:28 PM
Someone tell me out there what hitter on the FA market was going to make this team a playoff team?

Why do so many of you want a playoff team? I want a damn championship team and I'm not going to give an arm and a leg for Jermaine Freaking Dye just to "make the playoffs" this year.

Castellini has been a fantastic owner. He spends $, is trying to get fans to come to the ballpark any way he can. Not only because he wants to make money, but because he actually cares about winning.

It's threads like this that make me embarrassed to be a Cincinnati Reds fan.

We have people make all of these ridiculous trade offers that Jocketty should've done and then we'd be a World Series team. Why do so many people think Homer Bailey has THAT much trade value? Why do some people want to trade Yonder already? I don't get it.