PDA

View Full Version : Pay to Play



traderumor
07-21-2009, 10:28 AM
It struck me as I watched my favorite team go up against one of the money machines in the league that an owner of a major league franchise needs to be ready to pay to play or he should never buy the team.

Enter Frank McCourt and suddenly the Dodgers go from being a struggling big market franchise to filling holes where their system has not produced. Their money is so stupid, of course, they can still go out and get players even when they are eating contract disasters like Jones and Schmidt. And they do have an inherent market advantage because of being the LA franchise.

But still, before McCourt came in and started throwing some money on the table, this franchise was languishing. McCourt has complemented their farm system that is producing young and barely above average, but solid players, like Martin, Loney and Ethier, to go with blossoming stars like Kemp, with Furcal, Ramirez and Hudson.

Now comes Bob Castellini. He buys into a stadium, modest contract obligations, and a sleeping giant baseball market. But what money has he put on the table? Payroll? Same level as at buy-in. He has invested in some stadium upgrades, but the Pirates teach us that arguably the nicest ballpark doesn't mean jack. He invested in a manager and a closer, which are arguably two positions that can be had on the cheap if you spend your money correctly in other places, like a SS and a power hitter. To his credit, he has invested a lot of money in Latin America, so lets hope that long-term investment pays off.

But I don't think BC has paid to play yet. Sure, he has invested some long term capital improvement money, but he has not bumped up the working capital in any measurable way that I see that would allow his organization to bid on some talent at key positions where there are holes in the organization. I am growing increasingly impatient with that fact and think that he needs to pay to play in 2010 or get out of the game.

Next year, he has young talent that looks very similar to the Dodgers, with Bruce, Votto, Phillips already in place, some rookie contribution possibilities from one or more of Stubbs, Heisey, Frazier, et al, but he is going to need at least two established players to add if the team is going to be anything but average. If there ever was an offseason to invest some cash on players, this is the one. Quit churning dollars like some two bit construction contractor, Bob, and put down some cash to get you over the top. Your franchise is languishing.

Pay to play, buddy.

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 10:45 AM
It's easier when you have projectible, big money revenue guaranteed to flow in due to your market.

traderumor
07-21-2009, 10:50 AM
It's easier when you have projectible, big money revenue guaranteed to flow in due to your market.You have to make your market. Reds Country didn't happen in the 70s by creating artificial limitations. Of course, that was also the last time this organization had a visionary leader. Now, we seem to have stubborn old men.

RANDY IN INDY
07-21-2009, 10:53 AM
If you win, the people will come. If you pretend, people will see through it.

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 12:23 PM
You have to make your market. Reds Country didn't happen in the 70s by creating artificial limitations. Of course, that was also the last time this organization had a visionary leader. Now, we seem to have stubborn old men.

That was a much different time.

traderumor
07-21-2009, 01:22 PM
That was a much different time.It wasn't meant as "let's do that again," except to point out that the Reds have a vast potential fan base that they have put to sleep or sent to a distant franchise for some front-running with the current era of bad baseball.

The little boys that learned of the Reds and grew to love the game from the BRM are now in their 40s and soon to be entering their 50s, which just so happens to be peak earning years and peak disposable income times. Invest in putting together a top notch organization that produces a winner and the same market area is up for grabs and you start filling stadiums and creating other types of revenue that let the Reds compete in the top third of payrolls instead of moaning and groaning about trying to win with a smaller payroll budget.

The Indians have now left the territory up for grabs, why not take it?

I imagine because of too much small thinking and moaning and groaning about the plight of the small market franchise, another ownership group will fail to put the Reds back on the baseball map.

I(heart)Freel
07-21-2009, 02:44 PM
You simply can not make Cincinnati and LA an apples to apples discussion.

If you want to have this discussion, we'll need a lot more numbers on the table. TV/cable revenue streams. Ticket sales. Sponsorships. Luxury box sales.

Compare (contrast) all those and then say that BCast isn't spending what McCourt is.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 02:51 PM
That was a much different time.

It wasn't all that different.

Look at St. Louis. And to a lesser extent, Milwaukee.

Chip R
07-21-2009, 02:53 PM
It wasn't all that different.

Look at St. Louis. And to a lesser extent, Milwaukee.


Both teams draw way more than the Reds do. More tickets sold = more revenue.

traderumor
07-21-2009, 02:54 PM
You simply can not make Cincinnati and LA an apples to apples discussion.

If you want to have this discussion, we'll need a lot more numbers on the table. TV/cable revenue streams. Ticket sales. Sponsorships. Luxury box sales.

Compare (contrast) all those and then say that BCast isn't spending what McCourt is.For the record, there is no argument on the table that says BC has to spend what McCourt is.

But, you have to make Cincinnati and LA an apples to apples discussion because they are in the same league playing for the same prize. Also, excuses like these, which I have made similar arguments myself, keep owners of franchises like Cincy off the hook to win.

I, for one, am tired of the BS excuses. If you have a small market, do something about it. Don't sit there and bemoan that "we're not Chicago, Boston, LA, New York." We've whooped on them all before, playing by the same rules, having access to the same players, we can do it again. But, as long as we keep on getting owners and management teams who buy into the "small market" mentality, then we get more of what we already have. It appears that BC is just such an owner.

traderumor
07-21-2009, 02:57 PM
BTW, the Reds are in an era where there are no geographic limitations, yet they keep on crying "small market, small market." A Reds fan is now potentially anywhere in the world.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:02 PM
Both teams draw way more than the Reds do. More tickets sold = more revenue.

But the markets are similar.

More wins = more tickets sold = more revenue. It's not going to happen any other way.

The Cardinals and the Brewers haven't always drawn way more than the Reds.

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 03:02 PM
Both teams draw way more than the Reds do. More tickets sold = more revenue.

Tickets are only a fraction of what we are talking about.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:04 PM
Tickets are only a fraction of what we are talking about.

Exactly, and that's why there is no excuse for the Reds not to at least match those (St. Louis and Milwaukee) standards.

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 03:06 PM
U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA) Ranked by Households

Rank Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Households % of US
1 New York, NY 7,433,820 6.495
2 Los Angeles, CA 5,654,260 4.940
3 Chicago, IL 3,492,850 3.052
4 Philadelphia, PA 2,950,220 2.578
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 2,489,970 2.175
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 2,476,450 2.164
7 Boston, MA (Manchester, NH) 2,409,080 2.105
8 Atlanta, GA 2,369,780 2.070
9 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD) 2,321,610 2.028
10 Houston, TX 2,106,210 1.840
11 Detroit, MI 1,926,970 1.684
12 Phoenix, AZ 1,855,930 1.622
13 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), FL 1,822,160 1.592
14 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 1,819,970 1.590
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 1,730,530 1.512
16 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,546,920 1.352
17 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), OH 1,524,930 1.332
18 Denver, CO 1,524,210 1.332
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, FL 1,466,420 1.281
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, CA 1,399,520 1.223
21 St. Louis, MO 1,249,820 1.092
22 Portland, OR 1,175,100 1.027
23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,156,460 1.010
24 Charlotte, NC 1,122,860 0.981
25 Indianapolis, IN 1,114,970 0.974
26 Baltimore, MD 1,102,080 0.963
27 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), NC 1,080,680 0.944
28 San Diego, CA 1,066,680 0.932
29 Nashville, TN 1,016,290 0.888
30 Hartford & New Haven, CT 1,014,990 0.887
31 Kansas City, MO 937,970 0.819
32 Columbus, OH 925,840 0.809
33 Salt Lake City, UT 919,390 0.803
34 Cincinnati, OH 915,570 0.800
35 Milwaukee, WI 905,350 0.791

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 03:07 PM
Exactly, and that's why there is no excuse for the Reds not to at least match those (St. Louis and Milwaukee) standards.

I'm not sure that I would be using Milwaukee as a model for anything. It wasn't too long ago that they were a joke.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:09 PM
U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA) Ranked by Households

Rank Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Households % of US
1 New York, NY 7,433,820 6.495
2 Los Angeles, CA 5,654,260 4.940
3 Chicago, IL 3,492,850 3.052
4 Philadelphia, PA 2,950,220 2.578
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 2,489,970 2.175
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 2,476,450 2.164
7 Boston, MA (Manchester, NH) 2,409,080 2.105
8 Atlanta, GA 2,369,780 2.070
9 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD) 2,321,610 2.028
10 Houston, TX 2,106,210 1.840
11 Detroit, MI 1,926,970 1.684
12 Phoenix, AZ 1,855,930 1.622
13 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), FL 1,822,160 1.592
14 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 1,819,970 1.590
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 1,730,530 1.512
16 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,546,920 1.352
17 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), OH 1,524,930 1.332
18 Denver, CO 1,524,210 1.332
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, FL 1,466,420 1.281
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, CA 1,399,520 1.223
21 St. Louis, MO 1,249,820 1.092
22 Portland, OR 1,175,100 1.027
23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,156,460 1.010
24 Charlotte, NC 1,122,860 0.981
25 Indianapolis, IN 1,114,970 0.974
26 Baltimore, MD 1,102,080 0.963
27 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), NC 1,080,680 0.944
28 San Diego, CA 1,066,680 0.932
29 Nashville, TN 1,016,290 0.888
30 Hartford & New Haven, CT 1,014,990 0.887
31 Kansas City, MO 937,970 0.819
32 Columbus, OH 925,840 0.809
33 Salt Lake City, UT 919,390 0.803
34 Cincinnati, OH 915,570 0.800
35 Milwaukee, WI 905,350 0.791

My point exactly

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:12 PM
I'm not sure that I would be using Milwaukee as a model for anything. It wasn't too long ago that they were a joke.

Three years in a row of being over .500, including a 90 win season last year. Made a splash by trading for Sabathia at the deadline, and still have a very solid farm system. Just locked up Fielder and Braun to LTDs and made a commendable effort to sign Sabathia this offseason. That sure beats what the Reds have done this decade.

AtomicDumpling
07-21-2009, 03:14 PM
The Reds are content to make a huge profit while fielding mediocre to poor teams.

Castellini has proven to be another profit-minded owner without a competitive instinct. To him the Reds are just a business.

RedsManRick
07-21-2009, 03:15 PM
If you win, the people will come. If you pretend, people will see through it.

This. People come to watch you win. People do not come because you claim the losing stops now. If you win, they will come.

The Reds market can support an $80M payroll. The Reds can compete on an $80M payroll. They just need to start spending their money wisely.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:16 PM
This. People come to watch you win. People do not come because you claim the losing stops now. If you win, they will come.

The Reds market can support an $80M payroll. The Reds can compete on an $80M payroll. They just need to start spending their money wisely.

True. In theory, that's what Walt is for...

I'm very curious to see what happens in the next ten days. If he does nothing, it's more of the same.

Homer Bailey
07-21-2009, 03:18 PM
Three years in a row of being over .500, including a 90 win season last year. Made a splash by trading for Sabathia at the deadline, and still have a very solid farm system. Just locked up Fielder and Braun to LTDs and made a commendable effort to sign Sabathia this offseason. That sure beats what the Reds have done this decade.

Prince is signed through 2010.

AtomicDumpling
07-21-2009, 03:20 PM
U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA) Ranked by Households

Rank Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Households % of US
1 New York, NY 7,433,820 6.495
2 Los Angeles, CA 5,654,260 4.940
3 Chicago, IL 3,492,850 3.052
4 Philadelphia, PA 2,950,220 2.578
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 2,489,970 2.175
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 2,476,450 2.164
7 Boston, MA (Manchester, NH) 2,409,080 2.105
8 Atlanta, GA 2,369,780 2.070
9 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD) 2,321,610 2.028
10 Houston, TX 2,106,210 1.840
11 Detroit, MI 1,926,970 1.684
12 Phoenix, AZ 1,855,930 1.622
13 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), FL 1,822,160 1.592
14 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 1,819,970 1.590
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 1,730,530 1.512
16 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,546,920 1.352
17 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), OH 1,524,930 1.332
18 Denver, CO 1,524,210 1.332
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, FL 1,466,420 1.281
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, CA 1,399,520 1.223
21 St. Louis, MO 1,249,820 1.092
22 Portland, OR 1,175,100 1.027
23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,156,460 1.010
24 Charlotte, NC 1,122,860 0.981
25 Indianapolis, IN 1,114,970 0.974
26 Baltimore, MD 1,102,080 0.963
27 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), NC 1,080,680 0.944
28 San Diego, CA 1,066,680 0.932
29 Nashville, TN 1,016,290 0.888
30 Hartford & New Haven, CT 1,014,990 0.887
31 Kansas City, MO 937,970 0.819
32 Columbus, OH 925,840 0.809
33 Salt Lake City, UT 919,390 0.803
34 Cincinnati, OH 915,570 0.800
35 Milwaukee, WI 905,350 0.791

What this doesn't take into account is that the Reds' market extends far beyond the local TV viewing area. You need to add the numbers for Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Charleston, Dayton, and more if you want an accurate number.

Unlike many other teams along the coasts where teams are packed in tightly together, the Reds have a fanbase stretched over several states including Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee.

I had to spend a couple of days in rural Virginia last year when my father's truck broke down when we were passing through. I was very surprised to learn the people there were diehard Reds fans just like the people here in the tri-state.

Chip R
07-21-2009, 03:21 PM
But the markets are similar.

More wins = more tickets sold = more revenue. It's not going to happen any other way.

The Cardinals and the Brewers haven't always drawn way more than the Reds.


The Cardinals pretty much have except during the 70s. The point is that they have that past attendance money in the bank that they can use to help them win. Meanwhile the Reds tread water.

I do understand where you are coming from, though. It would be great for the Reds to be bold and stake out new territory. But that doesn't always translate into wins. The Cubs and Braves were the dominant Superstation teams from the 70s until recently. Up until 1991 and excepting a couple of years in the early 80s, the Braves were the dregs of the league. The Cubs were almost as bad up until the mid 80s and then when the 90s came, they reverted back to being a perennial loser up until about 2003.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:21 PM
Prince is signed through 2010.

Sorry, they gave him a 2-year $18MM deal. I believe that's even smarter than giving him a LTD, as I'd be concerned about his weight. With the current economy, it looks even smarter now.

The point is they have shown via Fielder, Braun, Sabathia etc. that they aren't afraid of taking chances, spending money, and spending it wisely to win.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:23 PM
What this doesn't take into account is that the Reds' market extends far beyond the local TV viewing area. You need to add the numbers for Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Charleston, Dayton, and more if you want an accurate number.

Unlike many other teams along the coasts where teams are packed in tightly together, the Reds have a fanbase stretched over several states including Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee.

I had to spend a couple of days in rural Virginia last year when my father's truck broke down when we were passing through. I was very surprised to learn the people there were diehard Reds fans just like the people here in the tri-state.

Very true. Just like the Red Sox have all of New England, the Reds have a broad region to draw from both in attendance and especially on television. Whether or not they have the brainpower and marketing genius to translate that into $$ is another story.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:26 PM
I do understand where you are coming from, though. It would be great for the Reds to be bold and stake out new territory. But that doesn't always translate into wins. The Cubs and Braves were the dominant Superstation teams from the 70s until recently. Up until 1991 and excepting a couple of years in the early 80s, the Braves were the dregs of the league. The Cubs were almost as bad up until the mid 80s and then when the 90s came, they reverted back to being a perennial loser up until about 2003.

Agreed. That's where the whole "spending it wisely" thing comes into play. Isn't that what Walt was brought in to do?

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 03:27 PM
Three years in a row of being over .500, including a 90 win season last year. Made a splash by trading for Sabathia at the deadline, and still have a very solid farm system. Just locked up Fielder and Braun to LTDs and made a commendable effort to sign Sabathia this offseason. That sure beats what the Reds have done this decade.

There are many teams that have done better than Cincy has this decade. Doesn't make them special.

redsmetz
07-21-2009, 03:29 PM
Franky one of the plusses of the Castellini ownership has been to reestablish the territory Schott had ceded (central and southeastern Ohio, parts in the other surrounding states - including southwestern Virginia, Tennessee). They've increased the radio network (even one in Mississippi).

That ultimately draws fans into see your team. I understand the frustration of folks, but except for drawing back on payroll this year because of the recession), they've been putting money into the minors (including Latin America, as noted) and gradually we've been seeing the talent reaching the ML club. It's not finished yet, not by a long shot, but they had a lot of ineptitude and bad business decisions to work back from. I can be patient a little bit longer and like what I've seen from BC (except the impulsive firing of WK, but I don't mind Jockety either).

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:30 PM
There are many teams that have done better than Cincy has this decade. Doesn't make them special.

But this thread is about whether or not you have to "Pay to Play" and if a market like the one the Reds have is capable of doing better. My contention is yes, they are. St. Louis and Milwaukee are good examples of this.

hebroncougar
07-21-2009, 03:32 PM
The Cardinals pretty much have except during the 70s. The point is that they have that past attendance money in the bank that they can use to help them win. Meanwhile the Reds tread water.

I do understand where you are coming from, though. It would be great for the Reds to be bold and stake out new territory. But that doesn't always translate into wins. The Cubs and Braves were the dominant Superstation teams from the 70s until recently. Up until 1991 and excepting a couple of years in the early 80s, the Braves were the dregs of the league. The Cubs were almost as bad up until the mid 80s and then when the 90s came, they reverted back to being a perennial loser up until about 2003.

So the Cardinals have a war chest from the 80's and late 90's of money to spend now? I'm not buying that. Spending certainly helps you eat mistakes, and allows you to buy one or two guys who are pretty solid superstars that you can count on year in and year out. No way does spending = championships, it really comes down to effective team management, and the Reds have poor upper management, GM's and team managers since the early to mid 90's. This in turn has made for a barren farm system, and once the money from Marge (which wasn't HUGE money, but she did spend at the major league level) dried up, it's been a disaster. I'm not sure anyone in the organization really knows how to win.

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 03:35 PM
Very true. Just like the Red Sox have all of New England, the Reds have a broad region to draw from both in attendance and especially on television. Whether or not they have the brainpower and marketing genius to translate that into $$ is another story.

And what about the earnings of fans of NY/LA/Boston versus Ohio? Are the fans of the Reds going to drop a couple of hundred at a game, continuously?Can Cincy draw from a place like Manhattan to charge $250/$500/even $2500 per seat? Can Cincy get the big name advertisers like B of A, Chevy etc to ink huge advertising contracts for the stadium and TV? Didn't Citi pay $20MM per year for naming rights to CitiField? How much did the Reds get in their naming deal? $2-3MM per year, I believe.

There are so many different factors to think about. It isn't just attendance. Even if the Reds sell out every game, are they going to be able to get revenue like this?

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:39 PM
And what about the earnings of fans of NY/LA/Boston versus Ohio? Are the fans of the Reds going to drop a couple of hundred at a game, continuously?Can Cincy draw from a place like Manhattan to charge $250/$500/even $2500 per seat? Can Cincy get the big name advertisers like B of A, Chevy etc to ink huge advertising contracts for the stadium and TV? Didn't Citi pay $20MM per year for naming rights to CitiField? How much did the Reds get in their naming deal? $2-3MM per year, I believe.

There are so many different factors to think about. It isn't just attendance. Even if the Reds sell out every game, are they going to be able to get revenue like this?

No, but I'm not just talking about attendance.

The Sox signed a very smart deal with NESN that provided them with a ton of TV revenue. The Reds have...?

Anyways, I am not trying to compare the Boston Red Sox to the Cincinnati Reds. My point in mentioning them was that they have a very broad region to draw from due to the lack of other teams in the area, as do the Reds. Obviously there are differences as well. I'm not sure why you brought NY or LA into the conversation.

The Cardinals and the Brewers are much better comparables for the Reds anyway. There is absolutely no fundamental reason why the Reds can't compete the way they have. The Tigers would be another good example.

bucksfan2
07-21-2009, 03:40 PM
And what about the earnings of fans of NY/LA/Boston versus Ohio? Are the fans of the Reds going to drop a couple of hundred at a game, continuously?Can Cincy draw from a place like Manhattan to charge $250/$500/even $2500 per seat? Can Cincy get the big name advertisers like B of A, Chevy etc to ink huge advertising contracts for the stadium and TV? Didn't Citi pay $20MM per year for naming rights to CitiField? How much did the Reds get in their naming deal? $2-3MM per year, I believe.

There are so many different factors to think about. It isn't just attendance. Even if the Reds sell out every game, are they going to be able to get revenue like this?

I agree with you except with the naming of the stadium. I believe it was named GABP and at a discount because of Lindner. If the Reds had let it go to the free market I am guessing that it would have attracted quite a bit more.

Homer Bailey
07-21-2009, 03:43 PM
This was shared with me by Atomic Dumpling. Very interesting. It doesn't code very well, but here is the link.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html




Rank Team Current Value1 ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value2 (%) Revenues ($mil) Operating Income3 ($mil)
30 Florida Marlins 277 8 32 139 43.7
14 Washington Nationals 406 -12 62 184 42.6
5 Chicago Cubs 700 9 0 239 29.7
26 Tampa Bay Rays 320 10 19 160 29.4
17 Baltimore Orioles 400 0 38 174 27.2
22 Minnesota Twins 356 9 28 158 26.8
27 Oakland Athletics 319 -1 28 160 26.2
3 Boston Red Sox 833 2 29 269 25.7
20 Colorado Rockies 373 1 21 178 24.5
2 New York Mets 912 11 76 261 23.5
16 San Diego Padres 401 4 60 174 22.9
9 San Francisco Giants 471 -5 28 196 22.4
18 Cleveland Indians 399 -4 25 181 19.5
15 Texas Rangers 405 -2 66 176 17.4
12 Houston Astros 445 -4 12 194 17
25 Cincinnati Reds 342 2 12 171 17
4 Los Angeles Dodgers 722 4 58 241 16.5
7 Philadelphia Phillies 496 3 35 216 16.3
29 Pittsburgh Pirates 288 -1 35 144 15.9
10 Chicago White Sox 450 2 9 196 13.8
24 Milwaukee Brewers 347 5 35 173 11.8
6 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 509 2 7 212 10.3
28 Kansas City Royals 314 4 13 143 9
8 St Louis Cardinals 486 0 50 195 6.6
11 Atlanta Braves 446 -10 0 186 4.7
19 Arizona Diamondbacks 390 3 51 177 3.9
13 Seattle Mariners 426 -9 23 189 3.8
23 Toronto Blue Jays 353 0 0 172 3
1 New York Yankees 1,500 15 95 375 -3.7
21 Detroit Tigers 371 -9 57 186 -26.3

Benihana
07-21-2009, 03:46 PM
FYI The Forbes numbers are completely bogus. MLB brings in PwC to do in-house bookeeping, and the numbers are quite different (in a good way for the clubs) than what Forbes puts out. Just a little inside industry info for ya.

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 03:51 PM
No, but I'm not just talking about attendance.

The Sox signed a very smart deal with NESN that provided them with a ton of TV revenue. The Reds have...?

Anyways, I am not trying to compare the Boston Red Sox to the Cincinnati Reds. My point in mentioning them was that they have a very broad region to draw from due to the lack of other teams in the area, as do the Reds. Obviously there are differences as well. I'm not sure why you brought NY or LA into the conversation.

The Cardinals and the Brewers are much better comparables for the Reds anyway. There is absolutely no fundamental reason why the Reds can't compete the way they have. The Tigers would be another good example.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it is unfair to bring a team like Boston into the mix. And I brought NY/LA into the mix since the thread started with an LA comparison.

Fundamentally, I agree with you 100%.

I(heart)Freel
07-21-2009, 03:56 PM
It's ironic.

The fair discussion, as the thread has evolved, is whether BCast can spend enough to keep up with solid SIMILAR franchises. You know, like the one that was built in St. Louis these past several years.

Gosh... wonder what BCast could do to emulate that formula?

edabbs44
07-21-2009, 04:05 PM
It's ironic.

The fair discussion, as the thread has evolved, is whether BCast can spend enough to keep up with solid SIMILAR franchises. You know, like the one that was built in St. Louis these past several years.

Gosh... wonder what BCast could do to emulate that formula?

Good point.

Everyone needs to be patient.

backbencher
07-21-2009, 04:05 PM
It's ironic.

The fair discussion, as the thread has evolved, is whether BCast can spend enough to keep up with solid SIMILAR franchises. You know, like the one that was built in St. Louis these past several years.

Gosh... wonder what BCast could do to emulate that formula?

Completely inappropriate observation.

I mean, just look at the prior owners. If only we could go back to the golden days of Lindner or Schott, then we would see what kind of spending this team could afford.

Or look at the payroll numbers. The Reds are getting dwarfed by all of these other teams:

http://www.getlisty.com/preview/2009-mlb-team-payrolls/

Or look at how the team went cheapo in hiring a manager. Went cheapo in the free agent market - I mean, like Cordero's contract or not, it is simply a pittance compared to the bags of money the Reds have showered on free agents since the 70s.

Or look at the failure to invest in the Caribbean or alternate baseball markets like Australia or Europe. Look at the refusal to sign top draft picks. The failure to take any risks on guys who want above-slot money.

To quote some Brits - apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Hoosier Red
07-21-2009, 04:16 PM
Completely inappropriate observation.

I mean, just look at the prior owners. If only we could go back to the golden days of Lindner or Schott, then we would see what kind of spending this team could afford.

Or look at the payroll numbers. The Reds are getting dwarfed by all of these other teams:

http://www.getlisty.com/preview/2009-mlb-team-payrolls/

Or look at how the team went cheapo in hiring a manager. Went cheapo in the free agent market - I mean, like Cordero's contract or not, it is simply a pittance compared to the bags of money the Reds have showered on free agents since the 70s.

Or look at the failure to invest in the Caribbean or alternate baseball markets like Australia or Europe. Look at the refusal to sign top draft picks. The failure to take any risks on guys who want above-slot money.

To quote some Brits - apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Chip R
07-21-2009, 04:19 PM
So the Cardinals have a war chest from the 80's and late 90's of money to spend now? I'm not buying that. Spending certainly helps you eat mistakes, and allows you to buy one or two guys who are pretty solid superstars that you can count on year in and year out. No way does spending = championships, it really comes down to effective team management, and the Reds have poor upper management, GM's and team managers since the early to mid 90's. This in turn has made for a barren farm system, and once the money from Marge (which wasn't HUGE money, but she did spend at the major league level) dried up, it's been a disaster. I'm not sure anyone in the organization really knows how to win.


Not necessarily but drawing 3M in 1987 sure helps for 1988 when you draw 2.8M and that helps for 1989 when you draw 3M again and so on and so on. Eventually you can use that money to shore up weak areas and draw a manager like LaRussa and players like McGwire and Edmonds and keep them. It also shows players that the fans are going to come out and watch them play. every player would rather play in front of a full house than 15K.

Spending does not equal championships. The Yankees are proof positive of that. But it isn't all luck either. Like you said, you have to have competent people running the show which StL and MIL have. People thought just because Bob owns the team and was a minority owner in StL and Walt's running the team and he was in StL too, that the Reds would start winning. That hasn't happened and people are getting impatient.

traderumor
07-21-2009, 05:20 PM
I see folks wanting to get into the market size arguments, but what I am getting at is that the Reds goal should be "becoming an organization that plays championship baseball." So far, BC has given lip service to that mindset, but has not provided tangible proof that these are any more than motivational words. BC seems to have the desire to win ASAP, but has not put that desire into action. So far, he is hedging his bet with the long-term investment and relying on his people who seem to think that our organization is going to supply championship caliber players. Our farm system has made great strides, but they are not producing championship caliber players. They are producing support staff.

Now, if you are going to be an organization that seeks to play championship baseball, then you must beat Boston, LA, NY teams, Chicago teams. I do not expect the Reds to be able to outspend these organizations, and I do understand that it is not necessarily how much, but how well you spend your money. But, at some point, they either have to develop a proprietary edge or spend money on the big league roster in the current environment.

Otherwise, they are resigned to also-ran status and continue the malaise in obscurity rivaling the first 60 years of the 20th century for franchise futility. I really hope they choose to play by the rules of the current environment and figure out a way to enter into that realm instead of waiting for the rules to change to be more to their advantage.
They've been waiting for that to happen about 30 years now. You'd think it would be time for them to accept and play within the current power structure.

redsmetz
07-21-2009, 06:06 PM
I see folks wanting to get into the market size arguments, but what I am getting at is that the Reds goal should be "becoming an organization that plays championship baseball." So far, BC has given lip service to that mindset, but has not provided tangible proof that these are any more than motivational words. BC seems to have the desire to win ASAP, but has not put that desire into action. So far, he is hedging his bet with the long-term investment and relying on his people who seem to think that our organization is going to supply championship caliber players. Our farm system has made great strides, but they are not producing championship caliber players. They are producing support staff.

Now, if you are going to be an organization that seeks to play championship baseball, then you must beat Boston, LA, NY teams, Chicago teams. I do not expect the Reds to be able to outspend these organizations, and I do understand that it is not necessarily how much, but how well you spend your money. But, at some point, they either have to develop a proprietary edge or spend money on the big league roster in the current environment.

Otherwise, they are resigned to also-ran status and continue the malaise in obscurity rivaling the first 60 years of the 20th century for franchise futility. I really hope they choose to play by the rules of the current environment and figure out a way to enter into that realm instead of waiting for the rules to change to be more to their advantage.

They've been waiting for that to happen about 30 years now. You'd think it would be time for them to accept and play within the current power structure.

Castellini is now in his fourth season as owner, although their first year was begun immediately before Spring Training started (a foolishly late start thanks to MLB's dillydallying approving the sale). IMO, BC has made one serious mistake and that was saying "the losing stops now" - and his action that proceed that. The firing of WK set back the club six months (although that's conjecture of my part).

Your suggestion that all the talent in the minors is essentially second rate ("they are producing support staff") seems a bit over the top. It's rare that most players end up being that, but it is way too early to make that judgment on many of our minor league players.

As for your history of the franchise, again you paint broadly. During the first 60 years of the 20th century (most of it, frankly), they went to the World Series three times and won twice. Add in just one year and you have one more appearch. Heavens there were quite a number of years where the team was dreadful, but it wasn't much different than many other franchises.

And yes, the last 30 years have been lean, but the last four years isn't the same as all of those other years. I just disagree that Castellini's up to the same garbage that Marge and Lindner had. I just don't think it's that way.

And frankly, I think this season financially is a blip caused by the horrible economic times.

traderumor
07-21-2009, 06:23 PM
Castellini is now in his fourth season as owner, although their first year was begun immediately before Spring Training started (a foolishly late start thanks to MLB's dillydallying approving the sale). IMO, BC has made one serious mistake and that was saying "the losing stops now" - and his action that proceed that. The firing of WK set back the club six months (although that's conjecture of my part).

Your suggestion that all the talent in the minors is essentially second rate ("they are producing support staff") seems a bit over the top. It's rare that most players end up being that, but it is way too early to make that judgment on many of our minor league players.

As for your history of the franchise, again you paint broadly. During the first 60 years of the 20th century (most of it, frankly), they went to the World Series three times and won twice. Add in just one year and you have one more appearch. Heavens there were quite a number of years where the team was dreadful, but it wasn't much different than many other franchises.

And yes, the last 30 years have been lean, but the last four years isn't the same as all of those other years. I just disagree that Castellini's up to the same garbage that Marge and Lindner had. I just don't think it's that way.

And frankly, I think this season financially is a blip caused by the horrible economic times.First, by support staff, I mean what I see as average to above average major leaguers. At positions, who currently seems to have "potential star" written on them? Alonso? The rest of the top prospects, e.g. Stubbs, Heisey, Frazier, do not seem to be potential stars, but good players that you can build around. That is needed for a championship caliber squad, but the number of potential stars is lacking in the system and is going to have to come from outside the organization.

From 1900-1969, the Reds had WC in 1919 and 1940, appearances in 1939 and 1961, and very few good years in between. The Reds are in the first half of just such an era from 1980 to the present, with only 1990 and 1995 providing a taste of the postseason.

I am about as pessimistic about the Reds ability to figure it out as I can get. They show no hint that they are going to play according to the current available methods of building a consistent championship caliber organization and there is no end in sight to the landscape dramatically changing in MLB that provides a break to cheap organizations. Not sure where I went over the edge, but I'm there.

savafan
07-21-2009, 07:02 PM
I agree with you except with the naming of the stadium. I believe it was named GABP and at a discount because of Lindner. If the Reds had let it go to the free market I am guessing that it would have attracted quite a bit more.

Likewise, if the team itself had gone on the free market, it could have been bought by an owner willing to spend more on the team. Unfortunately, Lindner wasn't willing to sell to anyone who wasn't local out of some irrational fear that everyone outside of Cincinnati would want to take the team away.

Benihana
07-21-2009, 09:24 PM
Likewise, if the team itself had gone on the free market, it could have been bought by an owner willing to spend more on the team. Unfortunately, Lindner wasn't willing to sell to anyone who wasn't local out of some irrational fear that everyone outside of Cincinnati would want to take the team away.

I'm not sure that fear was/is that irrational.

I wish he would have sold to the Mayerson group. That group would have spent for a winner.

BCubb2003
07-21-2009, 09:59 PM
I think Castellini pulled the franchise out of the chaos of the Schott years and the malaise of the Lindner years. He hired a GM with a first-rate track record, something we wanted and not an easy thing to do with the organization in the condition it was in. And whether you like Dusty Baker or not, at least he breaks the string of hire and fire the small-time company men. The draft picks haven't been superstars like Strasburg (the Reds haven't been quite bad enough to get those picks), but at least the organization can sign them.

I think Castellini and Jocketty have brought much-needed stability to the organization. Now they need to make good baseball decisions. Improve the draft picks, add quality around the good young players they have, reduce the need for filler outfielders, and add depth to be able to handle a season's worth of injuries.

westofyou
07-21-2009, 11:03 PM
BTW, the Reds are in an era where there are no geographic limitations, yet they keep on crying "small market, small market." A Reds fan is now potentially anywhere in the world.

More major cities and more major sports and big time college in the Reds market than there was in the 70's, meanwhile the northern neighbors have eaten into the top of the market in the past 2 decades.

It's a hard row to hoe to make Reds country a regional giant again. The world has gotten bigger and the Reds haven't.

RFS62
07-21-2009, 11:41 PM
More major cities and more major sports and big time college in the Reds market than there was in the 70's, meanwhile the northern neighbors have eaten into the top of the market in the past 2 decades.

It's a hard row to hoe to make Reds country a regional giant again. The world has gotten bigger and the Reds haven't.



I don't see it ever happening.

bucksfan2
07-22-2009, 08:47 AM
I'm not sure that fear was/is that irrational.

I wish he would have sold to the Mayerson group. That group would have spent for a winner.

Speculation. I thought Castellini would spend cash and quite a bit of it to bring this club into contention right away. In one way he has, he has invested money into the draft and Latin America. In another sense he has been more prudent spending money. Look at the discussion about Cordero's contract and how it is killing the Reds. He is a FA signing that has worked out, yet many feel the Reds can't afford his contract. In essence his not spending may have helped the team more than we think.

One thing to take into consideration, sans the Yankees FA signings, what players actually were good, little risk, FA signings? IMO the best bang for your buck signing was Dunn but the Reds weren't going down that road. Many of the good FA signings were either getting top dollar, or weren't in a position of need for the Reds.

edabbs44
07-22-2009, 09:20 AM
Speculation. I thought Castellini would spend cash and quite a bit of it to bring this club into contention right away. In one way he has, he has invested money into the draft and Latin America. In another sense he has been more prudent spending money. Look at the discussion about Cordero's contract and how it is killing the Reds. He is a FA signing that has worked out, yet many feel the Reds can't afford his contract. In essence his not spending may have helped the team more than we think.

One thing to take into consideration, sans the Yankees FA signings, what players actually were good, little risk, FA signings? IMO the best bang for your buck signing was Dunn but the Reds weren't going down that road. Many of the good FA signings were either getting top dollar, or weren't in a position of need for the Reds.

Agreed.

Many clamored for Walt to go and spend on the big name guys who were avialable last year. You know, the Bradleys, Furcals and Burrells of the world. Walt should be lauded for not locking these guys in last winter.

But now, those who were complaining last offseason now state that Walt should have signed the generic big bat that was available last year, even though the top choices have turned out to be fiascos.

Walt, nice work sticking with your plan last offseason. For me, you have until OD 2010 to prove that you are going to be different than what we have experienced recently. If nothing changes, then we have to think about some stuff.

traderumor
07-22-2009, 09:22 AM
More major cities and more major sports and big time college in the Reds market than there was in the 70's, meanwhile the northern neighbors have eaten into the top of the market in the past 2 decades.

It's a hard row to hoe to make Reds country a regional giant again. The world has gotten bigger and the Reds haven't.Well, if that is indeed the case, then they need to develop a proprietary advantage if they are going to play with the big boys again. It seems they are resigned to business as usual at this stage though. Hopefully after two beatdowns by the upper echelon in their league at Philly and now LA, they will see the enormous gap between our talent and the championship caliber talent. As for this season, preseason football starts in a few weeks :(

BCubb2003
07-22-2009, 09:40 AM
I agree the regional sports entertainment dollar is so fragmented right now, but within baseball the Reds ought to be able to outdo Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit. Especially with the help of all those Cubs fans.

redsmetz
07-22-2009, 10:18 AM
Well, if that is indeed the case, then they need to develop a proprietary advantage if they are going to play with the big boys again. It seems they are resigned to business as usual at this stage though. Hopefully after two beatdowns by the upper echelon in their league at Philly and now LA, they will see the enormous gap between our talent and the championship caliber talent. As for this season, preseason football starts in a few weeks :(

Perhaps you're operating out of a considerable bias in this discussion, Traderumor. And given the forlorn nature of the team this past decade, it's perfectly understandable. But you're assuming the worst and seem disinclined to give any argument that would acknowledge much of this is easier said than done.

For example, while the Reds have lost regional territory during that time, I see the BC regime working vigorously to recover some of that area. Expansion of the winter caravan, additional radio outlets, new arrangement on broadcasting that allows for closer working relationship with stations and advertisers out in the hinterlands, etc are just several ways they've looked to be more competitive in their whole market.

I can't say for sure what trades have been discussed and what price would have been required to consumate them. Same goes for free agency discussions. Who was approached? Who rebuffed us? Some noted that some FA's were available, but not in areas of need.

As for lack of activity thus far, Jocketty has certainly been the anti-Wayne, but I can't argue with that much. I've argued all season that part of what we were faced with was a need to get a better sense of what we actually have and what surplus we have. That could mean we decide that one or two of the three vets in the bullpen can be available (understanding the contract restriction on Cordero) and move a youngsters in as replacement. We didn't know the answer to that question in the spring and those three have performed well, as have the youngsters. So there's some surplus.

I think EE's hitting is for real, but I think he's expendable, with a reasonable contract which should be moved before his next one comes up (after 2010?). And I say that without even factoring in his defensive shortcomings. And we can make do with what we have in the minors.

I had no argument with playing out the Gonzalez contract, which IMO, was not a mistake, but rather, has been unfortunate. Enough said, but I fully understood why we didn't persue a shortstop at any price.

And this club has spent on beefing up development in the minors and signing international players, both in Latin America and elsewhere.

None of this is easy especially given the discontent of seasoned fans such as you see on RZ. We're tired of losing and the pipeline can't fill up fast enough. But other than the understandable drawback for this season (which I think management probably conceded anyway), I find Castellini's management of this club profoundly refreshing, some occasional missteps notwithstanding.

REDREAD
07-22-2009, 11:35 AM
Both teams draw way more than the Reds do. More tickets sold = more revenue.

Sure, but there's a reason why those 2 teams draw more than the Reds (and probably have a better TV deal).. They are good, exciting teams to watch.

Meanwhile, the Reds have sucked for a decade.

The Reds should be thankful that they draw as many fans as they do.

Benihana
07-22-2009, 12:04 PM
One thing to take into consideration, sans the Yankees FA signings, what players actually were good, little risk, FA signings? IMO the best bang for your buck signing was Dunn but the Reds weren't going down that road. Many of the good FA signings were either getting top dollar, or weren't in a position of need for the Reds.

Well let's see: I would have loved to have Orlando Hudson at $3.4MM and Bobby Abreu at $5MM on one-year deals. Pat Burrell at $16MM for 2 years looks pretty nice as well. All are guys at huge positions of need for the Reds. And that's just this past offseason.

edabbs44
07-22-2009, 12:14 PM
Well let's see: I would have loved to have Orlando Hudson at $3.4MM and Bobby Abreu at $5MM on one-year deals. Pat Burrell at $16MM for 2 years looks pretty nice as well. All are guys at huge positions of need for the Reds. And that's just this past offseason.

Dodgers, Angels, Rays and Reds.

One of these kids is doing his own thing. One of these kids is not like the other.

Also, I wonder how Burrell's .693 2009 OPS would be received by the Cincy faithful.

BRM
07-22-2009, 12:23 PM
Also, I wonder how Burrell's .693 2009 OPS would be received by the Cincy faithful.

Most likely just a tad better than the .588 OPS being put up by the outfielder Walt did sign over the winter.

edabbs44
07-22-2009, 12:28 PM
Most likely just a tad better than the .588 OPS being put up by the outfielder Walt did sign over the winter.

Factor in the money and I doubt it.

Benihana
07-22-2009, 12:32 PM
Dodgers, Angels, Rays and Reds.

One of these kids is doing his own thing. One of these kids is not like the other.

Also, I wonder how Burrell's .693 2009 OPS would be received by the Cincy faithful.

Oh stop with this crap. This is Reds-spin baloney. If the Brewers can sign Mike Cameron, there's no reason why the Reds couldn't have signed one of these guys (Hudson is the one I really wanted.)

bucksfan2
07-22-2009, 01:07 PM
Well let's see: I would have loved to have Orlando Hudson at $3.4MM and Bobby Abreu at $5MM on one-year deals. Pat Burrell at $16MM for 2 years looks pretty nice as well. All are guys at huge positions of need for the Reds. And that's just this past offseason.

Orlando Hudson plays 2nd base. The Reds had no need for another second baseman.

As long documented Abreu wasn't going to play in Cincy for $5M.

Burell is a DH. His defense is poor and his OPS has been rather pedestrian this season.

edabbs44
07-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Oh stop with this crap. This is Reds-spin baloney. If the Brewers can sign Mike Cameron, there's no reason why the Reds couldn't have signed one of these guys (Hudson is the one I really wanted.)

Maybe Cincy could have signed them, but they would have had to add years and money to the terms that they eventually signed for. There is no way Abreu would have went to a losing franchise for 1 year, $5MM. He would have needed to be paid like it was 2008.

Benihana
07-22-2009, 01:18 PM
Orlando Hudson plays 2nd base. The Reds had no need for another second baseman.

You're telling me the Reds would be better off with a middle infield of Phillips and Gonzalez/Janish than Phillips and Hudson?


As long documented Abreu wasn't going to play in Cincy for $5M. I would have happily given him $7-8 MM for one year.


Burell is a DH. His defense is poor and his OPS has been rather pedestrian this season. I'd still have taken him over any of the current in-house options.

bucksfan2
07-22-2009, 01:32 PM
You're telling me the Reds would be better off with a middle infield of Phillips and Gonzalez/Janish than Phillips and Hudson?

Phillips isn't moving to SS. This is his 3rd manager and 2nd GM who has kept him at 2b. It just isn't going to happen. I would love to move Joey Votto to 3b but that isn't going to happen.


I would have happily given him $7-8 MM for one year.

From what I remember Jocketty backed out of the Abreu talks when he was asking for multiple years around $10M/ year.


I'd still have taken him over any of the current in-house options.

IMO Gomes right now is just as good of a player as Burrell is and makes quite a bit less. Signing DH's to multiple year contracts to play in the NL is not a way to build a winner.

Benihana
07-22-2009, 01:38 PM
Phillips isn't moving to SS. This is his 3rd manager and 2nd GM who has kept him at 2b. It just isn't going to happen. I would love to move Joey Votto to 3b but that isn't going to happen.

And he's on his 3rd manager and 2nd GM who have yet to produce a winning season. Coincidence?

According to Fay, it remains a possibility for next year.




From what I remember Jocketty backed out of the Abreu talks when he was asking for multiple years around $10M/ year.

So get back in when he's about to settle for $5MM.




IMO Gomes right now is just as good of a player as Burrell is and makes quite a bit less.

Gomes through 61 games has been as good as Burrell. I prefer to look at the other 1306 games Burrell has played for a broader sample size.


Signing DH's to multiple year contracts to play in the NL is not a way to build a winner.

Please repeat that so the thousands of people on this board that wanted to give Adam Dunn a multiple year contract can hear.