PDA

View Full Version : Cardinals acquire Holliday



Benihana
07-23-2009, 02:32 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4350887

Scott Rolen
Mark DeRosa
Matt Holliday?

Gotta love it when your archrival keeps stealing your target acquisitions out from under you. :rolleyes:

Brutus
07-23-2009, 02:37 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4350887

Scott Rolen
Mark DeRosa
Matt Holliday?

Gotta love it when your archrival keeps stealing your target acquisitions out from under you. :rolleyes:

I want Matt Holliday. This year. Next year. And beyond. I won't lie. Rumors of his demise have been premature and exaggerated. Since May 1, he's had an OPS over .900. He's hitting, despite supposedly being a product of Coors Field.

Now that aside, it's not like the Reds have a reason to acquire him at the moment. If they could acquire him while signing him to an extension - by all means I'm for that. But as that's unlikely (Boras), I guess there's no reason to acquire him at the moment. If he's a free agent this offseason, I sure hope the Reds go after him with all their might.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2009, 02:37 PM
I don't really care if they get Holliday, as long as they don't sign him LTC. If they lose some future Reds killer prospects it works out better for the Reds, assuming they don't sign him long term. It's not like the Reds are contenders this year.

I want to sign him in the offseason. Badly.

Benihana
07-23-2009, 02:38 PM
I assume if the Cards are giving up Brett Wallace for him, they're planning on signing him to an extension. Think Scott Rolen circa 2002.

Chip R
07-23-2009, 02:46 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4350887

Scott Rolen
Mark DeRosa
Matt Holliday?

Gotta love it when your archrival keeps stealing your target acquisitions out from under you. :rolleyes:


Only in your mind.

osuceltic
07-23-2009, 02:50 PM
If the deal is just for Wallace, I wonder if we could have him for Alonso.

I'd do that, find a taker for Cordero, and start putting my contract offer together to sign Holliday.

edabbs44
07-23-2009, 03:02 PM
If the deal is just for Wallace, I wonder if we could have him for Alonso.

I'd do that, find a taker for Cordero, and start putting my contract offer together to sign Holliday.

There's the catch.

Kc61
07-23-2009, 03:05 PM
If the Cards trade for Holliday, he'll likely sign with them. It's their pattern and I can't imagine that he wouldn't want to sign there. Great franchise, usually in contention, city loves baseball.

To avoid that result, the Reds would have to break the bank to offer him a huge free agent contract. Highly unlikely.

The other way to avoid that result is to trade for him now. Doubtful because the Reds aren't really contending so they can't take the risk that he walks at season's end. They would have gained nothing and lost good prospects.

Those are the sad facts.

Chip R
07-23-2009, 03:07 PM
If the Cards trade for Holliday, he'll likely sign with them. It's their pattern and I can't imagine that he wouldn't want to sign there. Great franchise, usually in contention, city loves baseball.



Can't imagine why he wouldn't want to come here.

bucksfan2
07-23-2009, 03:09 PM
If the Cards trade for Holliday, he'll likely sign with them. It's their pattern and I can't imagine that he wouldn't want to sign there. Great franchise, usually in contention, city loves baseball.

To avoid that result, the Reds would have to break the bank to offer him a huge free agent contract. Highly unlikely.

The other way to avoid that result is to trade for him now. Doubtful because the Reds aren't really contending so they can't take the risk that he walks at season's end. They would have gained nothing.

Those are the sad facts.

Not necessarily. When was the last time Boras let his top FA sign early? The Cards would also have to give up quite a bit to get Holliday and then risk having him depart after the season.

It is a good move for the Cards for the near future. I wonder if they can afford to add another $15M+ salary to their club. It also will be interesting to see if they offer him arbitration if they are unable to sign him.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2009, 03:16 PM
If the Cards trade for Holliday, he'll likely sign with them. It's their pattern and I can't imagine that he wouldn't want to sign there. Great franchise, usually in contention, city loves baseball.

To avoid that result, the Reds would have to break the bank to offer him a huge free agent contract. Highly unlikely.

The other way to avoid that result is to trade for him now. Doubtful because the Reds aren't really contending so they can't take the risk that he walks at season's end. They would have gained nothing and lost good prospects.

Those are the sad facts.


That is nothing but conjecture.

GAC
07-23-2009, 03:23 PM
I can see a Hal McCoy headline in all of this... Jocketty Takes Holiday on Holliday.

IowaRed
07-23-2009, 03:23 PM
I thought you were misspelling Halladay. The Cardinals are the Reds archrival? Really? And the Cardinals keep stealing the Reds targets? I'm back from vacation but I must need to start paying a little closer attention.

Big Klu
07-23-2009, 03:29 PM
I just hope that somebody (not the Reds) trades for him, so I can stop hearing about him.

If the Reds ever did acquire him, it would be the darkest day in the history of my fandom, and I would probably have to go into self-imposed exile for a while. That's how much I loathe Matt Holliday.

Benihana
07-23-2009, 03:39 PM
I thought you were misspelling Halladay. The Cardinals are the Reds archrival? Really? And the Cardinals keep stealing the Reds targets? I'm back from vacation but I must need to start paying a little closer attention.

Cardinals, Cubs, Astros- take your pick. All three of them have been much better than the Reds.

And yes, going back to the Scott Rolen days, the Cards have been acquiring what would be ideal parts for the Reds.

The more things change...

TheNext44
07-23-2009, 03:58 PM
I can't believe the Cards would be dumb enough to trade Wallace for Holliday.

The kid will be either equaling or out producing Holliday in a year or two, and will be much cheaper. Even if the Cards sign Holliday, he won't be better than Wallace during those years, and will cost tens of millions of dollars more.

I guess they figure they are willing to pay that cost for a few months of a big bat to protect Pujols the rest of this season. This is the ultimate case of mortgaging the future to win right now.

Benihana
07-23-2009, 04:03 PM
This is the ultimate case of mortgaging the future to win right now.

Not if they lock him up to a deal.

TheNext44
07-23-2009, 04:09 PM
Not if they lock him up to a deal.

Not as much, but then they are still paying tens of millions more for roughly the same production. Maybe they have the payroll flex that this is a non-issue, but if not, then this prevents them from filling other needs in the future.

Chip R
07-23-2009, 04:15 PM
I guess they figure they are willing to pay that cost for a few months of a big bat to protect Pujols the rest of this season. This is the ultimate case of mortgaging the future to win right now.


Funny thing is, people have been saying this about them for over 10 years now.

Benihana
07-23-2009, 04:18 PM
I can't believe the Cards would be dumb enough to trade Wallace for Holliday.

The kid will be either equaling or out producing Holliday in a year or two, and will be much cheaper. Even if the Cards sign Holliday, he won't be better than Wallace during those years, and will cost tens of millions of dollars more.

I guess they figure they are willing to pay that cost for a few months of a big bat to protect Pujols the rest of this season. This is the ultimate case of mortgaging the future to win right now.

Sorry, but this is the difference between the Reds way of thinking and a real major league ballclub's way of thinking.

The Cardinals (and other such teams) have made many moves like this over the years, yet still seem to contend every year. The Reds are always cautious not to make a move like this, and never seem to contend. Coincidence? I don't think so.

RichRed
07-23-2009, 04:19 PM
Funny thing is, people have been saying this about them for over 10 years now.

My thought too. The Cardinals seem to make the moves they need to...and then there's Maude, I mean the Reds.

klw
07-23-2009, 04:36 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9843784/Source:-Cards'-interest-in-Holliday-'mild'-...-for-now

Don't pencil Matt Holliday into the Cardinals' lineup just yet.

Despite reports Thursday that St. Louis and Oakland are discussing a trade for the A's slugger, one source with knowledge of the Cardinals' thinking maintained that "there is nothing going on."

St. Louis is exploring many options ahead of the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline, but the source said that, at this point, the Cardinals' interest in Holliday is "mild."

Holliday, whose offseason acquisition helped make the A's a preseason sleeper pick in the AL West, struggled during the early part of the season. However, the right-handed hitting left-fielder has caught fire in July and raised his batting average to .287 entering Thursday. He also has 11 home runs and 54 RBIs.

St. Louis is looking for a big bat to complement Albert Pujols, who leads the NL in home runs and RBIs, and is second in batting average.

Discussions of a Holliday trade were first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and ESPN.com.

blumj
07-23-2009, 04:38 PM
Not if they lock him up to a deal.
He's a Boras client.

corkedbat
07-23-2009, 05:01 PM
Cards would have to sign him to a contract the would make PooHoles start slobbering.

In the end, they'd have to pony up about $40-50M/yr on those two. Ain't happenin'

Chip R
07-23-2009, 05:07 PM
Cards would have to sign him to a contract the would make PooHoles start slobbering.

In the end, they'd have to pony up about $40-50M/yr on those two. Ain't happenin'


That's a good point. However, if this happens, I think he's a rental.

Benihana
07-23-2009, 05:17 PM
Cards would have to sign him to a contract the would make PooHoles start slobbering.

In the end, they'd have to pony up about $40-50M/yr on those two. Ain't happenin'

I don't think so.

If the Cards lock up Holliday to a deal, Pujols might be more inclined to stay for less. I doubt Holliday gets a deal like Rolen's and I doubt Pujols gets more than A-Rod in this economy, although you could make the argument that he deserves it.

Either way, I'd imagine the Cards could ink both for <$40MM/year.

TheNext44
07-23-2009, 05:18 PM
Sorry, but this is the difference between the Reds way of thinking and a real major league ballclub's way of thinking.

The Cardinals (and other such teams) have made many moves like this over the years, yet still seem to contend every year. The Reds are always cautious not to make a move like this, and never seem to contend. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I completely agree with you on this overall point about the difference between the Reds and Cards in the past.

But this deal is different that past Card deals. Except for the Haran/Mulder deal, the Cards never give up solid prospects the like of Wallace to get who they want.

I just think this one will backfire just like the Haran/Mulder deal did. Very similar, two players, one young and cheap, one old and expensive.

Like I said, they probably are rich enough to overcome it, or at least think they are.

Benihana
07-23-2009, 05:24 PM
I completely agree with you on this overall point about the difference between the Reds and Cards in the past.

But this deal is different that past Card deals. Except for the Haran/Mulder deal, the Cards never give up solid prospects the like of Wallace to get who they want.

I just think this one will backfire just like the Haran/Mulder deal did. Very similar, two players, one young and cheap, one old and expensive.

Like I said, they probably are rich enough to overcome it, or at least think they are.

Mark Mulder was 27 when he was traded. Matt Holliday is 29. Neither one is/was "old".

The point is that Wallace is a prospect, like it or not. He may turn out well (like Haren) or he may be a bust (like all of the guys they traded for McGwire and Rolen). If the Cardinals can afford to lock up both Holliday and Pujols, I'd pull the trigger on this deal if I were them.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-23-2009, 05:38 PM
I just hope that somebody (not the Reds) trades for him, so I can stop hearing about him.

If the Reds ever did acquire him, it would be the darkest day in the history of my fandom, and I would probably have to go into self-imposed exile for a while. That's how much I loathe Matt Holliday.

Wow.

It would really be awful if the Reds went out and got a proven star.

Watching Laynce Nix and Johnny Gomes is so much more fun :rolleyes:

Big Klu
07-23-2009, 05:45 PM
Wow.

It would really be awful if the Reds went out and got a proven star.

Watching Laynce Nix and Johnny Gomes is so much more fun :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with whether Holliday is a star. Yes, he's a much better player than either Nix or Gomes.

It has everything to do with the fact that I don't like Holliday. Never have, never will. And he's somebody who I hope NEVER plays for my favorite team.

Brutus
07-23-2009, 05:50 PM
I don't think so.

If the Cards lock up Holliday to a deal, Pujols might be more inclined to stay for less. I doubt Holliday gets a deal like Rolen's and I doubt Pujols gets more than A-Rod in this economy, although you could make the argument that he deserves it.

Either way, I'd imagine the Cards could ink both for <$40MM/year.

He already stayed for less once. By all accounts, in 2011, whether it be from St. Louis or someone else, he's going to ask top dollar. And well he should.

I think adding Holliday certainly would not hurt their chances. However, the payroll thing will be tricky.

Eric_the_Red
07-23-2009, 06:34 PM
It has nothing to do with whether Holliday is a star. Yes, he's a much better player than either Nix or Gomes.

It has everything to do with the fact that I don't like Holliday. Never have, never will. And he's somebody who I hope NEVER plays for my favorite team.

Did he run over your dog?

Big Klu
07-23-2009, 06:56 PM
Did he run over your dog?

Something like that.

KoryMac5
07-23-2009, 07:03 PM
In this era of journalistic sensationalism I would put a 50/50 chance of Holliday being dealt at about less than 10% or so. I just don't think we will see many big names moving places because of the economic situations most teams find themselves in. Paying big bucks to both Pujols and Holliday would be financial suicide for the Cardinals.

TheNext44
07-23-2009, 07:03 PM
Mark Mulder was 27 when he was traded. Matt Holliday is 29. Neither one is/was "old".

The point is that Wallace is a prospect, like it or not. He may turn out well (like Haren) or he may be a bust (like all of the guys they traded for McGwire and Rolen). If the Cardinals can afford to lock up both Holliday and Pujols, I'd pull the trigger on this deal if I were them.

Thanks for the correction.

Both were expensive.

And no one that that Cards gave up for McGwire and Rolen were really prospects.

They were Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews and Blake Stein: Placido Polanco, Bud Smith and Mike Timlin. Polanco and Timlin were the only ones who did anything, and both were in the majors (Timlin was a veteran) at the time of the trade.

Wallace may be a prospect, in that he has not played in the big leagues, but I have the same certainty about him hitting well in the majors as I have about Holliday hitting well outside Coors. I think they both will, but there is some doubt in both cases.

RedLegSuperStar
07-23-2009, 07:06 PM
I can see the Cards netting Holliday.. I can also see him resigning with them.. unfortunatly because the Reds need a guy like him who they can place between Votto and Bruce and allow Phillips to move down the lineup.

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2009, 11:29 AM
And it's now closer. Just what Walt and company has been waiting for. :cool:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4353256


Updated: July 24, 2009, 11:15 AM ET
Sources: Holliday deal is close

The Athletics and Cardinals are close to completing a trade that would send outfielder Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for third baseman Brett Wallace, outfielder Shane Peterson and right-handed pitcher Clayton Mortensen, league sources told ESPN The Magazine's Tim Kurkjian.

Holliday, 29, is eligible for free agency after this season, and has had a lackluster season overall with the Athletics, hitting .287 with 11 homers and 54 RBIs.


But he has hit well this month, batting .344 with a .421 on-base percentage, and one scout who has seen him play said Tuesday that Holliday is swinging the bat as well now as he has all year. The Cardinals have been searching for a way to upgrade their offense to build some lineup protection for first baseman Albert Pujols.

Earlier this season, St. Louis had indicated to other teams that it did not have a lot of money to spend, but it's possible that the Cardinals' front office could navigate that issue by getting approval from ownership, or by having Oakland kick in some money to offset the money still owed to Holliday, which is about $6 million.

Oakland acquired Holliday in a trade with Colorado last fall, in the hope that he would be the anchor to the Athletics' offense. But Holliday -- and the whole Oakland offense -- has struggled for much of this year, and rival general managers have wondered if the shift in baseball's economics might compel the Athletics to move Holliday.

Holliday is earning $13.5 million in salary this season, and in order for Oakland to recoup draft picks, it would have to offer him arbitration. Holliday could be in line for an award of $16 million, something that might be more difficult for the small-market Athletics to absorb. The Yankees, after all, declined to offer Bobby Abreu arbitration last fall because they feared that he might accept it.

Benihana
07-24-2009, 11:30 AM
Deal is on the verge of happening:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4353256

That's a nice haul for the A's. Let's just hope the Cards don't sign Holliday for the long-term.

RedLegSuperStar
07-24-2009, 11:49 AM
Blah... The Reds missed the boat and have secured themselves 10 straight losing seasons.. And one of the best FA OFers will be off the market... You just know the Cards will resign Holliday.

HeatherC1212
07-24-2009, 11:49 AM
It's interesting that there are a few people in the comments section of that ESPN article who aren't thrilled with this trade. I guess they don't like the idea of a 2.5 month rent a player even if it would give Pujols more protection. I don't think the Cards will be able to sign Holliday when he hits FA if they also want to keep Pujols long term. Meh, the Cards just won the whole dang thing three years ago. I'm not a fan of seeing them win the whole thing again and this will definitely help them out. Rats. :thumbdown

Benihana
07-24-2009, 12:14 PM
The A's are going to have a nice looking infield for the next 5-6 years.

RedLegSuperStar
07-24-2009, 12:21 PM
Cards get Holliday

MLBTradeRumors.com/ESPN-

11:16am: ESPN.com's Buster Olney reports that the deal is complete. The A's will contribute $1.5MM to the remainder of Holliday's salary, which leaves the Cards with about $4.5MM.

corkedbat
07-24-2009, 12:22 PM
Meh! Holiday is a rental that might have gotten the Reds closer to .500 by the end of the year but I don't think he would have guaranteed the division. I think the chances of signing an LTC with him in Cincy were nill and the price in young talent would have been exhorbitant. I'll admit he would have looked very good between Votto and a healthy Bruce, but then, so would Pujols and he was never coming here either.

I would be much more surprised, happy and impressed if Walt could manage a return like the A's are receiving for some of our higher-priced vets, but we're just gonna get status quo.

savafan
07-24-2009, 12:23 PM
:lastyear:

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2009, 12:23 PM
Cards get Holliday

MLBTradeRumors.com/ESPN-

11:16am: ESPN.com's Buster Olney reports that the deal is complete. The A's will contribute $1.5MM to the remainder of Holliday's salary, which leaves the Cards with about $4.5MM.

Just wonderful. Go ahead Walt and start dealing guys off, this is what you have been waiting for.

nate
07-24-2009, 12:24 PM
Meh! Holiday is a rental that might have gotten the Reds closer to .500 by the end of the year but I don't think he would have guaranteed the division. I think the chances of signing an LTC with him in Cincy were nill and the price in young talent would have been exhorbitant. I'll admit he would have looked very good between Votto and a healthy Bruce, but then, so would Pujols and he was never coming here either.

I would be much more surprised, happy and impressed if Walt could manage a return like the A's are receiving for some of our higher-priced vets, but we're just gonna get status quo.

Yeah. I don't think the Reds were a Matt Holiday away from the playoffs.

Maybe Matt Holiday and Roy Halladay and Scott Rolen and Yuniel Escobar away though!

HeatherC1212
07-24-2009, 12:25 PM
Thank goodness we only play the Cards six more times this year. :eek:

Homer Bailey
07-24-2009, 12:25 PM
Good haul for the A's.

savafan
07-24-2009, 12:25 PM
Just wonderful. Go ahead Walt and start dealing guys off, this is what you have been waiting for.

History shows that Walt will sit back and monitor the market, then make moves when the best prospects have already been dealt and we'll get back guys who are 4-5 years away from flaming out in the major leagues.

edabbs44
07-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Meh! Holiday is a rental that might have gotten the Reds closer to .500 by the end of the year but I don't think he would have guaranteed the division. I think the chances of signing an LTC with him in Cincy were nill and the price in young talent would have been exhorbitant. I'll admit he would have looked very good between Votto and a healthy Bruce, but then, so would Pujols and he was never coming here either.

I would be much more surprised, happy and impressed if Walt could manage a return like the A's are receiving for some of our higher-priced vets, but we're just gonna get status quo.

Yep. It would have cost Cincy a deal like Alonso/Stewart/someone else.

edabbs44
07-24-2009, 12:27 PM
History shows that Walt will sit back and monitor the market, then make moves when the best prospects have already been dealt and we'll get back guys who are 4-5 years away from flaming out in the major leagues.

If you are talking about Wallace, the Cards weren't dealing him to Cincy anyway. So the available prospect pool hasn't changed at all.

savafan
07-24-2009, 12:29 PM
If you are talking about Wallace, the Cards weren't dealing him to Cincy anyway. So the available prospect pool hasn't changed at all.

No, I'm talking about the type of "prospects" the Reds always seem to get in deadline deals as opposed to the studs acquired by other teams.

lollipopcurve
07-24-2009, 12:29 PM
Cardinals do not do this deal unless they feel they've got a good chance to hold onto Holliday. Guaranteed they make a serious run at him at some point.

They sat out the winter market with the idea they'd capitalize at the deadline market. Meanwhile, the Reds just kind of sweep their stall.

joshnky
07-24-2009, 12:30 PM
I would be much more surprised, happy and impressed if Walt could manage a return like the A's are receiving for some of our higher-priced vets, but we're just gonna get status quo.

I don't think any of our "higher-priced vets" are in the same league as Holliday so its fairly doubtful that we will receive a similar return. The best we can hope for is salary relief.

traderumor
07-24-2009, 12:31 PM
Getting my RZ there's bad in every deal hat on, why did the Cards trade away an advanced 3B prospect when they have been playing Joe Thurston and Mark DeRosa? Why would they trade away a LFer for a bad SS, then get rid of an advanced prospect for a rental LFer?

joshnky
07-24-2009, 12:34 PM
History shows that Walt will sit back and monitor the market, then make moves when the best prospects have already been dealt and we'll get back guys who are 4-5 years away from flaming out in the major leagues.

What do we have to trade that will generate a decent return? Everyone on the trading block for the Reds has some issue that makes them undesirable. Harang is the best chip and he is overpriced compared to his production over the past year.

The best we can hope for is that the losers of the Halliday sweepstakes become deperate and decide to overpay for Harang or Arroyo. That scenario will likely be a deadline deal.

The key to other teams getting good players in return is that they have good players to trade. The Reds have had few of those over the past ten years.

savafan
07-24-2009, 12:37 PM
I don't think any of our "higher-priced vets" are in the same league as Holliday so its fairly doubtful that we will receive a similar return. The best we can hope for is salary relief.

The annual trade for salary relief that never gets invested back into the players on the field. I'll pass, that strategy hasn't proven anything to me before.

Perhaps Holliday wouldn't have gotten the Reds into the playoffs this year, but it would have been a move to show they're serious to the fans, bringing in more attendance, thus increasing revenue that can be spent to improve the team.

The annual roster purge only serves to disenfranchise fans, causing them to spend their money elsewhere and giving ownership an excuse for not having enough $ to compete.

Krusty
07-24-2009, 12:53 PM
I think the Reds knew at the beginning of the season that 2009 wouldn't be the year for them to make their run. And I also think Scott Boras will have Holliday test the market first before reupping with St. Louis.

bucksfan2
07-24-2009, 12:54 PM
Cardinals do not do this deal unless they feel they've got a good chance to hold onto Holliday. Guaranteed they make a serious run at him at some point.

They sat out the winter market with the idea they'd capitalize at the deadline market. Meanwhile, the Reds just kind of sweep their stall.

Milwaukee thought made a good run at CC and the Angles made a run at both Tex and CC IIRC. How did those moves work out?

I don't see any way Boras lets Holliday sign before he hits FA.

lollipopcurve
07-24-2009, 12:57 PM
Milwaukee thought made a good run at CC and the Angles made a run at both Tex and CC IIRC. How did those moves work out?

I don't see any way Boras lets Holliday sign before he hits FA.

Believe me, I hope this works out the same way for the Cards. But you cannot assume it will. Reports had him wanting to go to a good hitters environment, and the NL Central is about as good as it gets. St. Louis is a great place to play, and the pennant chase this year will only sell it more. Don't be surprised if he's in that lineup with Pujols beyond 2009.

Blitz Dorsey
07-24-2009, 01:05 PM
It stinks being a Reds fan in general. But it really stinks when the Cardinals do EVERYTHING that I wish the Reds would do. Frustrating time and time again.

Caveat Emperor
07-24-2009, 01:12 PM
I would have thought St. Louis would be more worried about the house of cards they have for a pitching staff vs. acquiring an overpriced slugger.

More power to them, I suppose.

I'm hoping the Reds have their sights firmly on changing things to make 2010 a better year.

VR
07-24-2009, 01:14 PM
What's the lowdown on the Cards prospects.....other than Mortenson looking like Ichabod Crane?

CTA513
07-24-2009, 01:19 PM
Yeah. I don't think the Reds were a Matt Holiday away from the playoffs.

Maybe Matt Holiday and Roy Halladay and Scott Rolen and Yuniel Escobar away though!

:thumbup:

Falls City Beer
07-24-2009, 01:21 PM
I would have thought St. Louis would be more worried about the house of cards they have for a pitching staff vs. acquiring an overpriced slugger.

Two TOR starters and a lights out closer is really all you need pitching-wise in the postseason. The Cards have got that.

Benihana
07-24-2009, 01:22 PM
Because this board is obsessed with discussing Adam Dunn and Walt Jocketty's merits, how does the return Billy Beane got for Holliday compare to what Jocketty got for Dunn?

Both players were Free Agents to be at the end of the season. Dunn was OPSing .70 pts higher than Holliday at the time they were traded. Their salaries were comparable. While both players have great track records of production, each had questions about their game with Dunn's defense & desire and Holliday's ability to hit outside of Coors.

I'd say Beane's return crushes Jocketty's, and it's not even close. Would one of the Jocketty defenders care to disagree?

princeton
07-24-2009, 01:22 PM
It stinks being a Reds fan in general. But it really stinks when the Cardinals do EVERYTHING that I wish the Reds would do. Frustrating time and time again.

wish we had their GM

oh but walt a minute...

dougdirt
07-24-2009, 01:23 PM
What's the lowdown on the Cards prospects.....other than Mortenson looking like Ichabod Crane?

Brett Wallace was their first round pick last year. He is a third baseman for another year or two, but will wind up at first base soon. He is a solid hitter, but I doubt will be above average at 1B and may be slightly above average at 3B.

Clayton Mortensen is a big ground ball guy who could have strong success in that division. Probably a good #3 if things go right, but could probably be a solid #4 today for Oakland.

Shane Peterson... toss in.

Jpup
07-24-2009, 01:25 PM
Two TOR starters and a lights out closer is really all you need pitching-wise in the postseason. The Cards have got that.

Ryan Franklin is not someone you want to depend on in the postseason. I understand your theory, but the Cardinals have nothing for Manny and the Dodgers or Utley and the Phillies.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 01:25 PM
I would have thought St. Louis would be more worried about the house of cards they have for a pitching staff vs. acquiring an overpriced slugger.

More power to them, I suppose.

I'm hoping the Reds have their sights firmly on changing things to make 2010 a better year.

For purposes of getting to the playoffs, the Cards' staff is a little shaky on the back end (or at least over-performing).

But once they get there, I'm actually pretty impressed with Carpenter-Wainwright-Lohse. It's a solid trio. Most definitely throwing Halladay in that mix with the other two would make them deadly, but assuming they can now get into the playoffs with this club, I think they're still in real good shape by adding Holliday.

VR
07-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Brett Wallace was their first round pick last year. He is a third baseman for another year or two, but will wind up at first base soon. He is a solid hitter, but I doubt will be above average at 1B and may be slightly above average at 3B.

Clayton Mortensen is a big ground ball guy who could have strong success in that division. Probably a good #3 if things go right, but could probably be a solid #4 today for Oakland.

Shane Peterson... toss in.

Thanks Doug.

RedsManRick
07-24-2009, 01:33 PM
Holliday has basically returned to form since May 5th. I'm not one to cherry pick stats, but I think this analysis from Fangraphs sums it up nicely:



After a brutal April (.240/.288/.360), Holliday has gone right back to being an All-Star caliber player. Since May 1st, but not including the two hits he already has today, he’s at .292/.394/.473 while playing his usual above average defense. Considering that those numbers are coming while playing in a good pitchers park, and Holliday’s performance should have ended any talk about him being a product of Coors Field.

ZIPS projects a .369 wOBA from Holliday over the rest of the season. If he’s traded to a team with a more hitter friendly park, that’s probably more like .375. Toss in the defense and the baserunning, and Holliday is a +4 to +5 win player going forward. Even with just two months remaining in the season, that makes Holliday about +1.5 wins compared to a replacement level corner outfielder between now and the end of the season.

Put me in the group that thinks Holliday will get inked to an extension in St. Louis. I'd guess something like 5/75.

corkedbat
07-24-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't think any of our "higher-priced vets" are in the same league as Holliday so its fairly doubtful that we will receive a similar return. The best we can hope for is salary relief.

Oh, i don't have any illusions that they can deal any one of our vets could land three solid prospects. I would've believed a month ago that they could've gotten a very solid return for Harang and maybe even something interesting for Arroyo, Weathers or Rhodes - especially if there were throw-ins from select farm hands. But, as per usual, they waited too long...well, waited is probably the wrong word - they were never gonna do anything in the first place.

Therein lies the real rub - expecting agressiveness and creativity from a front office totally bereft of it.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 01:40 PM
each had questions about their game .... Holliday's ability to hit outside of Coors.wouldn't say that it is in question. He's a slightly above average LF, that's about it.

Of course the 2009 Reds would die for a player like that.

bucksfan2
07-24-2009, 01:47 PM
Because this board is obsessed with discussing Adam Dunn and Walt Jocketty's merits, how does the return Billy Beane got for Holliday compare to what Jocketty got for Dunn?

Both players were Free Agents to be at the end of the season. Dunn was OPSing .70 pts higher than Holliday at the time they were traded. Their salaries were comparable. While both players have great track records of production, each had questions about their game with Dunn's defense & desire and Holliday's ability to hit outside of Coors.

I'd say Beane's return crushes Jocketty's, and it's not even close. Would one of the Jocketty defenders care to disagree?

Maybe it says more about what other GM's were willing to give up for Dunn as opposed to Holliday.

I love how every move made has become a "Walt is a bad GM, move".

Benihana
07-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Maybe it says more about what other GM's were willing to give up for Dunn as opposed to Holliday.

I love how every move made has become a "Walt is a bad GM, move".

Seems like there is some legitimate trade interest in Dunn these days. Knowing Dunn's willingness to play 1B and judging his OPS vs. Holliday's, I don't see why GM's wouldn't be willing to give up similar returns.

I love how every scenario can be re-framed for apologists so that Walt can do no wrong. Fact of the matter is he's done almost nothing since becoming this organization's General Manger. I hope he changes that in the next 7 days.

IslandRed
07-24-2009, 02:05 PM
Maybe it says more about what other GM's were willing to give up for Dunn as opposed to Holliday.

I love how every move made has become a "Walt is a bad GM, move".

Yep.

Whatever we here on RedsZone thought Dunn should have been worth in trade or as a free agent, and how he might compare to Holliday, it's crystal clear that the rest of baseball didn't and doesn't agree.

Ltlabner
07-24-2009, 02:06 PM
I love how every move made has become a "Walt is a bad GM, move".

You mean all one of them?

nate
07-24-2009, 02:06 PM
I love how much love is in this thread.

Lovely!

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:07 PM
I love how much love is in this thread.

Lovely!
:luvu:

osuceltic
07-24-2009, 02:10 PM
I'd say Beane's return crushes Jocketty's, and it's not even close.
I'd say Holliday's talent crushes Dunn's.

LoganBuck
07-24-2009, 02:11 PM
Maybe it says more about what other GM's were willing to give up for Dunn as opposed to Holliday.

I love how every move made has become a "Walt is a bad GM, move".

Agree, I like Adam Dunn, but his value is limited to a very particular role on some teams, he is limited defensively to LF, 1B, and DH. Teams that could have afforded to take his salary likely had a player already in those roles. Matt Holliday can play defense, and if necessary could play right field, Adam Dunn can not.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 02:12 PM
I love how every scenario can be re-framed for apologists so that Walt can do no wrong. Fact of the matter is he's done almost nothing since becoming this organization's General Manger. I hope he changes that in the next 7 days.

There's also a camp that Walt can do no right. Few seem to bring up that he did manage to acquire a good reliever for Ken Griffey Jr. when no one expected more than a bag of peanuts. And he turned a one-month waiver deal rental into a serviceable fifth starter who can hit to boot.

Thing is, he can do wrong. He has done wrong. And I'm sure he'll do more wrong. But (some) people that are saying "woah there" on the Jocketty bashing are doing so because they think Jocketty is being critiqued on his (in)ability to get things done for 2009 when it may have been all along he was circling 2010 - in which case it's too presumptuous to analyze his results.

If you still feel it's fair game to criticize him for his handling of the 2009 club. Fine. But since this is his first full year as general manager of the Cincinnati Reds, if 2009 was not his priority but rather 2010 was, it just seems a bit heavy to rip on him much for something that was not on his agenda.

I'm giving the dude the benefit of the doubt. Not for any undying love I have for him or the organization. Believe me, my friends would tell you I can be pretty critical at times. But he has one fine track record and since this is his first actual full year on this particular job, I'm going to give him the time & space I feel is reasonable to give the man to do that job. And for me, less than 12 months is not it.

Next year at this time, I'll be humming a much different tune if things are not looking up.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 02:14 PM
You mean all one of them?

Dunn-Owings
Griffey-Masset
Freel-Hernandez
Nix & Gomes signing

Maybe my math is wrong, but...

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:15 PM
Cards need another pitcher as well. There is no way Piniero can keep up his level of performance which leaves the Birds with 2 decent starters and fodder.

bucksfan2
07-24-2009, 02:17 PM
Seems like there is some legitimate trade interest in Dunn these days. Knowing Dunn's willingness to play 1B and judging his OPS vs. Holliday's, I don't see why GM's wouldn't be willing to give up similar returns.

I love how every scenario can be re-framed for apologists so that Walt can do no wrong. Fact of the matter is he's done almost nothing since becoming this organization's General Manger. I hope he changes that in the next 7 days.

You wanted to compare what Walt netted for Dunn last year as opposed to what the Cards netted for Holliday.

For some reason most of baseball tends to think Holliday is an elite baseball player. You can make the argument that he is a product of Coors, RMR pointed out that he has rebounded nicely after a poor April, but the reality is that most baseball men and scouts are very impressed by Holliday.

It was clearly evident last season that there wasn't much demand for Dunn. Even in the off season he went to the worst team in the history of baseball, for a 2 year deal at a discount. You could make the argument that the market was speaking more than anything, but the demand for Dunn was not there.

I don't want to make this thread into anything else. I just don't think the comparisons between Dunn and Holliday are apt.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:17 PM
done deal

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090724&content_id=6030782&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

not that impressive of a haul ... I am not at all enamored with Wallace.

bucksfan2
07-24-2009, 02:20 PM
Cardinals do not do this deal unless they feel they've got a good chance to hold onto Holliday. Guaranteed they make a serious run at him at some point.

They sat out the winter market with the idea they'd capitalize at the deadline market. Meanwhile, the Reds just kind of sweep their stall.

Its kind of ironic that the man who was behind the Cards trading for stars and then signing them long term is currently the GM of our team. It is also quite ironic that many want to run him out of town already.

KoryMac5
07-24-2009, 02:23 PM
Good deal by Billy Beane made for the A's. He let the market come to him instead of going and looking for deals, content to get the draft picks for Holliday. In comparison if we look at Toronto's approach they are letting the market dictate what Halladay is worth.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:24 PM
Good deal by Billy Beane made for the A's. He let the market come to him instead of going and looking for deals, content to get the draft picks for Holliday. In comparison if we look at Toronto's approach they are letting the market dictate what Halladay is worth.the market determined Holliday wasn't worth much because these guys are marginal prospects. Beane simply cut his losses and took the best deal he could get.

Ltlabner
07-24-2009, 02:25 PM
It is also quite ironic that many want to run him out of town already.

Who exactly is calling for Walt to be run out of town?

Unless my reading comprehension skills have gone to seed, I think most people are just asking Walt to make some impact moves instead of tinkering around the edges.

bucksfan2
07-24-2009, 02:26 PM
Good deal by Billy Beane made for the A's. He let the market come to him instead of going and looking for deals, content to get the draft picks for Holliday. In comparison if we look at Toronto's approach they are letting the market dictate what Halladay is worth.

Was the original package that Beane gave up for Holliday worth more or less than what he got when he traded Holliday?

Brutus
07-24-2009, 02:28 PM
the market determined Holliday wasn't worth much because these guys are marginal prospects.

Wallace should in no way have 'marginal' by his name. Here he is, still very early in his career, and he's now hitting well in AAA. He's got an .800 OPS in stops between AA and AAA despite his lack of professional experience. I'm not ready to proclaim him the best thing since sliced bread, but it's a pretty impressive feat.

The other two is probably here nor there. But Wallace is a good return for a guy they were going to lose after the season.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:29 PM
Was the original package that Beane gave up for Holliday worth more or less than what he got when he traded Holliday?Beane got a lot less. Street has been good for the Rockies and Gonzalez still has some long term potential. There really isn't much to like about any of the three suspects Beane got from the Cards.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:31 PM
Wallace s ... he's now hitting well in AAA. no he's not. he's not a 3b, has a low BB rate and is a poor athlete with marginal power. He not only doesn't project as an impact 1B, he may not even project as a starting 1B. Seems like the Birds unloaded him while he still had value. BTW, the Cards need a 3b(they have been using a series of turds all season), if he was so good why didn't they bring him up?

Brutus
07-24-2009, 02:35 PM
no he's not. he's not a 3b, has a low BB rate and is a poor athlete with marginal power. He not only doesn't project as an impact 1B, he may not even project as a starting 1B.

He's a 22-year old OPS'ing .770 in his first 220 at-bats in Triple-A. No one is proclaiming that to be other worldly but that's nothing to dismiss as 'marginal.' That's actually pretty good for a kid that young and with that little experience. The walk rate is not great at AAA but it was excellent earlier this year at AA. So it's too early to judge him for that.

That's an awfully high bar you're trying to set for a 22-year old in his first 230 plate appearances at that level.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:39 PM
He's a 22-year old OPS'ing .770 in his first 220 at-bats in Triple-A. No one is proclaiming that to be other worldly but that's nothing to dismiss as 'marginal.' That's actually pretty good for a kid that young and with that little experience. The walk rate is not great at AAA but it was excellent earlier this year at AA. So it's too early to judge him for that.

then why wasn't he in st louis filling the black hole they have there. The reason is that he is poor athlete who is not a 3B. His problem is that he projects as a 1b/DH which meant he had no place to play in St. Louis. He has more value to the A's but his lack of power is troubling.

TheNext44
07-24-2009, 02:41 PM
no he's not. he's not a 3b, has a low BB rate and is a poor athlete with marginal power. He not only doesn't project as an impact 1B, he may not even project as a starting 1B. Seems like the Birds unloaded him while he still had value. BTW, the Cards need a 3b(they have been using a series of turds all season), if he was so good why didn't they bring him up?

Not sure where you are getting your scouting report from, but it's way off.

Here are two:


Scouting Report: Wallace’s greatest asset is his approach at the plate. He has very good plate discipline considering his age as it generally takes some time to get everything in synch. But Wallace is the type of hitter who refuses to expand his strike zone and waits pitchers out, forcing them to throw him something he can make solid contact with. Wallace also does a great job in plate coverage thanks to his batting stance which crowds the plate. With his advanced approach, Wallace has the potential to translate his success to the pros and could end up being a perennial on-base machine. I project him a .280-.300 hitter, around .380-.400 OBP and a slugging percentage in the upper .500’s. Then add in his 25-30 homers and 100+ RBI and you have a pretty strong offensive weapon that Albert Pujols will love having hit behind him. With all that said, he is an average defender at third (I view him higher than most) who would be better suited to play first, but with that position locked up, he will do just fine at the hot corner (read my extended scouting report on Wallace with his “Prospect Spotlight“).



Wallace is a left-handed hitter with a tremendous approach, above-average power, and -- unlike a lot of left-handed-hitting prospects -- has no trouble hitting left-handed pitching. He's currently at third base, where he's a below-average defender; although he's an average runner and has a good arm, he lacks lateral range and will probably never be an average defender there. The A's could leave him at third and live with the defense to get the advantage of a plus bat at the position, or slide him to first base or DH, since his bat will play at either position. Oakland will send him to Triple-A Sacramento right away, but he should be ready to take an everyday job in Oakland by Opening Day 2010.

And the other two prospects are a sandwich pick in 07 and 2nd round pick in 08. Not exactly suspects either.

Still this was not as good a package as the that Beane gave up to Coors to get Holliday.

Strikes Out Looking
07-24-2009, 02:48 PM
Its kind of ironic that the man who was behind the Cards trading for stars and then signing them long term is currently the GM of our team. It is also quite ironic that many want to run him out of town already.

Maybe the problem isn't the GM or the manager. Maybe it's the third of the trio, who seems to be holding on to his checkbook as if he's the second coming of Carl Linder.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 02:48 PM
then why wasn't he in st louis filling the black hole they have there. The reason is that he is poor athlete who is not a 3B. His problem is that he projects as a 1b/DH which meant he had no place to play in St. Louis. He has more value to the A's but his lack of power is troubling.

What lack of power? He's 22, already in Triple-A and has a decent 11 homers in 350 at-bats this year. For a kid still in his infancy of using a wooden bat, that's nothing to sneeze over.

The reason he was not filling the Cardinals' void is because, again, he's 22 and has a grand total of 600 professional plate appearances under his belt - all of one season. I'm sure he's not ready for the big leagues, but not being ready is a whole different ballgame than being marginal.

KoryMac5
07-24-2009, 02:49 PM
then why wasn't he in st louis filling the black hole they have there. The reason is that he is poor athlete who is not a 3B. His problem is that he projects as a 1b/DH which meant he had no place to play in St. Louis. He has more value to the A's but his lack of power is troubling.

The knock I have heard on wallace is that he is not a bad athlete rather the opposite. Its his body type (pear shaped) and conditioning that can get him in trouble. I would imagine he would outgrow that with maturity. That being said his defense probably will never be more than slightly above average.

That being said I think the return Beane got is pretty solid. Wallace was rated very high in some circles, while Mortensen was ranked 6th best prospect in the Cardinals organization. The throw in Petersen was a second round pick a year ago. Not a bad haul in this economic climate.

cincyinco
07-24-2009, 02:50 PM
Wallace

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:51 PM
15 BBs in 220+ ABs means either he's hacking a lot or pitchers have no fear of challenging him. Low BB totals project future problems(just ask Jay Bruce).

The fact that Wallace is not a 3b means he has to develop power to have any usefulness. If he was that good he would have been playing in the bigs instead of Thurston/Barden/Freese. The fact the Cardinals never brought him and gave a shot to fix their black hole tells me what I really want to know(which is, how did the Birds feel about him).

cincyinco
07-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Wallace is anything but a marginal prospect...

He's easily top 100 material.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 02:57 PM
15 BBs in 220+ ABs means either he's hacking a lot or pitchers have no fear of challenging him. Low BB totals project future problems(just ask Jay Bruce).

The fact that Wallace is not a 3b means he has to develop power to have any usefulness. If he was that good he would have been playing in the bigs instead of Thurston/Barden/Freese. The fact the Cardinals never brought him and gave a shot to fix their black hole tells me what I really want to know(which is, how did the Birds feel about him).

He had 18 walks in 146 plate appearances earlier this year in AA. And in two stops last year, he had 19 walks in 220 plate appearances. Even further, I've read in several places he sees a ton of pitches. He does not have "low BB totals." As a pro, in fact, he's got nearly a 9% walk rate. That's actually very good for a guy that has one year of professional plate appearances.

The fact that the Cardinals didn't bring him up just means he is a 22-year old with one year of PA's and isn't ready for the big leagues. That's not a knock on a kid. In fact, it would be shocking if he were even an option.

flyer85
07-24-2009, 02:58 PM
Its his body type (pear shaped) and conditioning that can get him in trouble.
and the major leagues are filled with position players with pear shaped body types. The fact is there are hardly any(I honestly can't think of any that aren't catchers), the big guys that do well all have the apple shaped bodies.

Blitz Dorsey
07-24-2009, 03:16 PM
Yep, no doubt the Cardinals will sign him to a LTC and our misery as Reds fans will continue as we watch from the outside as real MLB teams make moves. Not saying we should have made a move now (I think we're done) but actually addressing some needs in the offseason would have been nice. What a joke.

edabbs44
07-24-2009, 03:24 PM
Maybe the problem isn't the GM or the manager. Maybe it's the third of the trio, who seems to be holding on to his checkbook as if he's the second coming of Carl Linder.

Bologna.

The guy signed off on Wayne giving Cordero the richest deal ever for a reliever. He also extended Harang and Arroyo before he had to. He has spread money around LatAm and gave a pretty fat contract to Alonso.

He has spent money. The allocation of funds has been the issue.

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2009, 03:32 PM
Bologna.

The guy signed off on Wayne giving Cordero the richest deal ever for a reliever. He also extended Harang and Arroyo before he had to. He has spread money around LatAm and gave a pretty fat contract to Alonso.

He has spent money. The allocation of funds has been the issue.

What he did a year ago and before should be construed in a different light. I don't think he is the 2nd coming of Lindner but he isn't spending right now. The economy has scared his wallet damn near shut since the start of FA in late '09. He or someone said no to several viable and reasonably priced options to add to this teams chances and the words that keep coming up for the lack of movement is money. Sure allocation is a part of it as well but he just ain't spending.

fearofpopvol1
07-24-2009, 03:33 PM
Great trade for the Cards. Unlike the Reds, the Cards were a Holliday away from winning the lackluster NL Central. True, he is a rental. But they didn't give up too much and if they make the postseason (which they had a realistic chance of prior to the Holliday acquisition), it makes a world of sense.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2009, 03:37 PM
Castellini would much rather make a huge profit than win baseball games. Carl Lindner redux.

You can name a few instances of the Reds spending money, but overall the payroll has held steady while the profits have risen. Other teams have bypassed the Reds in payroll. Other teams make moves to improve their team, while the Reds just talk about making moves. The Reds had some glaring holes in the offseason and there were good free agents available at bargain prices but the Reds did nothing but lower the payroll.

It is time to stop making excuses and begin applying some pressure on Castellini to put up or shut up.

KoryMac5
07-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Great trade for the Cards. Unlike the Reds, the Cards were a Holliday away from winning the lackluster NL Central. True, he is a rental. But they didn't give up too much and if they make the postseason (which they had a realistic chance of prior to the Holliday acquisition), it makes a world of sense.

Couple that with the fact that they just got Derosa a little while ago and the Cards FO grades out really well this trade season.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 03:43 PM
Castellini would much rather make a huge profit than win baseball games. Carl Lindner redux.

You can name a few instances of the Reds spending money, but overall the payroll has held steady while the profits have risen. Other teams have bypassed the Reds in payroll. Other teams make moves to improve their team, while the Reds just talk about making moves. The Reds had some glaring holes in the offseason and there were good free agents available at bargain prices but the Reds did nothing but lower the payroll.

It is time to stop making excuses and begin applying some pressure on Castellini to put up or shut up.

Your signature is both misleading and factually incorrect. The numbers you cite from Forbes is not profit. It's operating income. And at that, it does not include amortization, taxes and other debt beyond stadium debt. Considering all those figures, then adding in the distribution to the many, many shareholders involved, even if those numbers are accurate (and since Forbes does not have access to the books, they probably are not), when it's all said and done, Castellini and his partners would not be 'profiting' very much.

I hate to ruin this campaign you've been making against Reds' ownership based on the Forbes numbers, but it's just not factually correct.

Benihana
07-24-2009, 03:50 PM
Your signature is both misleading and factually incorrect. The numbers you cite from Forbes is not profit. It's operating income. And at that, it does not include amortization, taxes and other debt beyond stadium debt. Considering all those figures, then adding in the distribution to the many, many shareholders involved, even if those numbers are accurate (and since Forbes does not have access to the books, they probably are not), when it's all said and done, Castellini and his partners would not be 'profiting' very much.

I hate to ruin this campaign you've been making against Reds' ownership based on the Forbes numbers, but it's just not factually correct.

Actually Brutus, you're right- the Forbes numbers are NOT factually correct.

The Reds (and most other MLB teams) are, in fact, much more profitable than the Forbes numbers report. The Forbes numbers are estimates from the outside and don't factor in a lot of important information. The clubs bring in PwC to do their real audits, and that information is not released publicly. Ask anyone with inside knowledge of how MLB teams books work- they'll tell you the same thing.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2009, 03:53 PM
Your signature is both misleading and factually incorrect. The numbers you cite from Forbes is not profit. It's operating income. And at that, it does not include amortization, taxes and other debt beyond stadium debt. Considering all those figures, then adding in the distribution to the many, many shareholders involved, even if those numbers are accurate (and since Forbes does not have access to the books, they probably are not), when it's all said and done, Castellini and his partners would not be 'profiting' very much.

I hate to ruin this campaign you've been making against Reds' ownership based on the Forbes numbers, but it's just not factually correct.

The profit numbers are indeed accurate. All debts and expenses have been included in the numbers. Do some research instead of making rude posts.

The Forbes numbers are very close to accurate, they are very conservative and the Reds profit is likely higher. Forbes spends a lot of time and money doing these and they have proven to be very close to accurate over the years. Forbes is a very respected fixture in the financial world and they put their name on these numbers, so I will believe them over Brutus the Pimp.

Amortization and depreciation increase profit by lowering taxes. Of course you have to pay taxes on your profit. This is the real world here.

The Reds make a huge profit while fielding a pathetic team every year. That is an indisputable fact. They get away with it because of excuse-makers like you.

PuffyPig
07-24-2009, 03:56 PM
Wow.

It would really be awful if the Reds went out and got a proven star.

Watching Laynce Nix and Johnny Gomes is so much more fun :rolleyes:

Even though the Nix/Gomes platoon has given us as much as Holliday gave the A's from a hitting stand point.

I don't like giving up premium propsects plus substantial money for average LF production. Or even above average. It's just too easy to plug retreads like Gomes and Nix and get similar production.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 03:57 PM
Actually Brutus, you're right- the Forbes numbers are NOT factually correct.

The Reds (and most other MLB teams) are, in fact, much more profitable than the Forbes numbers report. The Forbes numbers are estimates from the outside and don't factor in a lot of important information. The clubs bring in PwC to do their real audits, and that information is not released publicly. Ask anyone with inside knowledge of how MLB teams books work- they'll tell you the same thing.

I know people that work for PWC, actually, and have had this conversation. And in those conversations, it's always been said to me that certainly few franchises are in the red. In fact, most of them have been operating in the black consistently. However, while the franchise itself makes a lot of money, remember that there are usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 major investors per team and often as many as 30 minority owners with any given franchise. When the dividends check actually come out, many franchises owners are getting what they need out of it, but not a ton more.

Point is, as a franchise, the Reds and other teams are most definitely profitable. But people forget how many hands are actually in the cookie jar. When it is distributed to the shareholders, the chunk is not as insulting to fans as you might think.

PuffyPig
07-24-2009, 03:59 PM
15 BBs in 220+ ABs means either he's hacking a lot or pitchers have no fear of challenging him. Low BB totals project future problems(just ask Jay Bruce).



FWIW, this is the first time that Wallace has ever had walk problems.

Stephenk29
07-24-2009, 04:01 PM
My Cardinal friends feel they may have been robbed again. Reminds them of the Mulder-Haren deal they say.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 04:11 PM
The profit numbers are indeed accurate. All debts and expenses have been included in the numbers. Do some research instead of making rude posts.

The Forbes numbers are very close to accurate, they are very conservative and the Reds profit is likely higher. Forbes spends a lot of time and money doing these and they have proven to be very close to accurate over the years. Forbes is a very respected fixture in the financial world and they put their name on these numbers, so I will believe them over Brutus the Pimp.

Amortization and depreciation increase profit by lowering taxes. Of course you have to pay taxes on your profit. This is the real world here.

The Reds make a huge profit while fielding a pathetic team every year. That is an indisputable fact. They get away with it because of excuse-makers like you.

Get back to me when it's the purpose of an owner to run a business and not profit. Despite our government's attack on capitalism and honest earnings in this country, the purpose of any proprietorship, LLC, corporation or small, medium or large business is to earn capital. That's the goal.

The Reds reside in the smallest media market in America of all markets housing a Major League Baseball franchise. So Cincinnati's share of their own local media revenue is going to be less than most franchises, as you well know, since television and radio stations' rights fees will not be as hire because of market penetration and subsequent ad revenue to justify the rights. Point is, while Reds' ownership as a whole is profiting, no question, each individual is doing what is necessary to make the investment worthwhile and not terribly much beyond that.

However, despite being the smallest media market, Reds' ownership puts the payroll that is near the middle of the pack in annual payroll for the last few years, which is slightly disproportionate to its local media revenue. So instead of being an excuse-maker, I'd rather be a realist. The Reds have room to improve, but I don't expect them to kill their profit margin because of entitled Reds fans wanting to put an assault on capitalism.

The assault on the Reds ownership is not totally inappropriate but more likely misdirected. It's basic economics and they don't favor small markets. If this displeases you perhaps you should go after the CBA's lack of real cap or meaningful salary thresholds.

Benihana
07-24-2009, 04:12 PM
I know people that work for PWC, actually, and have had this conversation. And in those conversations, it's always been said to me that certainly few franchises are in the red. In fact, most of them have been operating in the black consistently. However, while the franchise itself makes a lot of money, remember that there are usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 major investors per team and often as many as 30 minority owners with any given franchise. When the dividends check actually come out, many franchises owners are getting what they need out of it, but not a ton more.

Point is, as a franchise, the Reds and other teams are most definitely profitable. But people forget how many hands are actually in the cookie jar. When it is distributed to the shareholders, the chunk is not as insulting to fans as you might think.

Still disagree. Bob Castellini owns about 70% of the Reds. He's taking in EIGHT FIGURES a year on the Reds.

Furthermore, in your most recent post, you are talking only about media revenue. The Reds make far more than most of the teams below them in the payroll rankings in actual game attendance, so your focus is misguided.

Strikes Out Looking
07-24-2009, 04:25 PM
BobCast hasn't spent major dollars since mid 2008. He is morphing into Carl Linder in a Pirate's uniform.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 04:29 PM
Still disagree. Bob Castellini owns about 70% of the Reds. He's taking in EIGHT FIGURES a year on the Reds.

Furthermore, in your most recent post, you are talking only about media revenue. The Reds make far more than most of the teams below them in the payroll rankings in actual game attendance, so your focus is misguided.

It's not misguided, as local media rights comprises a higher share of income than does attendance (after cost of stadium operations, of course). So my point was that these broadcasting rights being located in a small market is a big hurdle to get over. Sure, the Reds do well for their size in attendance. I don't represent that this is not a plus in their favor. But it's not the primary source of income.

Whereas the Reds are similar to the mean in attendance, there's a large, large distance between they and other franchises in local media. In fact, the Reds, Milwaukee, Tampa, Kansas City and Minnesota have typically fallen outside standard deviation in revenue in this department.

I greatly, greatly take issue with your assertion that Castellini is pulling eight figures. For starters, Castellini himself does not own 70 percent. His group purchased 70 percent with the remaining 30 percent staying among some previous minority owners that did not sell their shares of ownership held from Lindner. The Williams brothers and other minority investors are included in the 70 percent ownership of the club. The group could well be taking in eight figures when it's all said and done, but I do not believe Castellini is pulling in much above that.

Caveat Emperor
07-24-2009, 09:11 PM
BobCast hasn't spent major dollars since mid 2008. He is morphing into Carl Linder in a Pirate's uniform.

Anyone checked how Bob's fruit company is doing in the recession? I haven't, but that's a very relevant line of inquiry to this particular debate.

Stormy
07-24-2009, 09:36 PM
Yep, no doubt the Cardinals will sign him to a LTC and our misery as Reds fans will continue as we watch from the outside as real MLB teams make moves. Not saying we should have made a move now (I think we're done) but actually addressing some needs in the offseason would have been nice. What a joke.

Agree 100%. Holliday will thrive there, and very likely extend (ala Mac, Edmonds, Rolen etc...). This move will also demonstrate that the St. Louis Cardinals' success model created Walt Jocketty, not the other way around. This is a signature 'Jocketty move', only he won't be able to replicate the same magic here, because he's now operating in an alternate universe.

Cedric
07-24-2009, 09:47 PM
Agree 100%. Holliday will thrive there, and very likely extend (ala Mac, Edmonds, Rolen etc...). This move will also demonstrate that the St. Louis Cardinals' success model created Walt Jocketty, not the other way around. This is a signature 'Jocketty move', only he won't be able to replicate the same magic here, because he's now operating in an alternate universe.

You need to post more. Dead on again. Walt Jocketty is way above his head here. The next addition he makes to improve this team will be his first. I'm actually half stunned that I wish Wayne Krivsky would walk back through our GM door again.

Big Klu
07-24-2009, 09:52 PM
and the major leagues are filled with position players with pear shaped body types. The fact is there are hardly any(I honestly can't think of any that aren't catchers), the big guys that do well all have the apple shaped bodies.

Good for child-bearing, though.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 09:58 PM
You need to post more. Dead on again. Walt Jocketty is way above his head here. The next addition he makes to improve this team will be his first. I'm actually half stunned that I wish Wayne Krivsky would walk back through our GM door again.

I dunno.

I myself would call the Nick Masset acquisition a solid one.

And for the cost, acquiring Laynce Nix has looked all right for a reclamation project. Jonny Gomes has been deadly against left-handers and decent enough worth using against some right-handers too.

Those aren't championship additions, but to say they haven't improved the team, in my opinion, is selling it short.

Heck, Masset, for a majority of the season, has been lights out.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2009, 10:05 PM
I dunno.

I myself would call the Nick Masset acquisition a solid one.

And for the cost, acquiring Laynce Nix has looked all right for a reclamation project. Jonny Gomes has been deadly against left-handers and decent enough worth using against some right-handers too.

Those aren't championship additions, but to say they haven't improved the team, in my opinion, is selling it short.

Heck, Masset, for a majority of the season, has been lights out.

-I'll take Affeldt over Masset (still, I think Masset is decent, but not the bees knees as some on this board)

-I'll take Dunn over Gomes. No comparison offensively. Defense is a wash.

-I'll take Dickerson over Nix. Pretty much a wash at this point, though.


Improved the team?

I don't agree.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 10:13 PM
-I'll take Affeldt over Masset (still, I think Masset is decent, but not the bees knees as some on this board)

-I'll take Dunn over Gomes. No comparison offensively. Defense is a wash.

-I'll take Dickerson over Nix. Pretty much a wash at this point, though.


Improved the team?

I don't agree.

Nix/Gomes has been a huge improvement defensively according to every defensive metric I've seen. About a month ago, I think it was said that the Reds has improved by some 15 runs at that position this year. Dunn wasn't going to come back though. So for the cost, Jocketty did decent in finding a productive group of players to replace him with.

As far as Masset, "decent" is selling him short.

2.50 ERA
0.93 WHIP
8.2 K/9
2.9 BB/9
0.7 HR/9
3.25 FIP, 1.71 ERC
.177 Gross Production Average Against

Not seeing anything 'decent' about his production this season. He's been very, very good.

WMR
07-24-2009, 10:18 PM
It must be fun to be a Cardinals fan.

We're still trying to pump up the Nick Masset trade. lol

dsmith421
07-24-2009, 10:22 PM
It must be fun to be a Cardinals fan.

I note that Holliday has already kicked in an RBI single and Julio freaking Lugo went yard. Literally everything they touch turns to gold. "Oh look, a fresh dog turd and VOILA IT IS NOW A PERFECTLY SEASONED PIECE OF KOBE BEEF!"

redsfandan
07-24-2009, 10:24 PM
Anyone checked how Bob's fruit company is doing in the recession? I haven't, but that's a very relevant line of inquiry to this particular debate.
How? It's like people think he's the ONLY owner of both businesses and can just use profits from one to help the other. Seems people just want to simplify things without any respect to reality.

_Sir_Charles_
07-24-2009, 10:34 PM
Just to rub salt in the wound....Holliday just went 4 for 5 in his debut. 8-1 win over the Phils. *sigh*

Cedric
07-24-2009, 10:47 PM
I did miss Masset. That's obviously pathetic considering how long he has been running this team. Even average Joe fan realizes that Walt Jocketty is in over his head. Can't name one casual Reds fan who wasn't laughing/screaming about Mcdonald over Gomes. Honestly it's the most laughable GM decision in recent Reds memory. And that is saying something BIG. It's a pure sign the guy doesn't know what he is doing.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2009, 10:51 PM
Nix/Gomes has been a huge improvement defensively according to every defensive metric I've seen. About a month ago, I think it was said that the Reds has improved by some 15 runs at that position this year. Dunn wasn't going to come back though. So for the cost, Jocketty did decent in finding a productive group of players to replace him with.

Personally, I think 15 runs is absurd. Regardless, whatever metric someone uses defensively, it still doesn't account for what the Big Donkey gave this club offensively....and that was A-LAWT, even with his ridonkulous excuse for a manager hitting him 6th every day.

With that said, it's really hard for me to give credit to Walt for scraping the bottom of the garbage can and finding a decent return. Any of the five or so GM's running the worst franchises in baseball can do that, year in and year out. Kriv-dawg, himself was great at it.

And I didn't know we were using a certain date as the start date for improving the team. IMO, Walt really hasn't done anything to make this team better than last year's model. The team is NO DOUBT weaker in LF, mainly due to.......

Not upgrading a bat in LF.


Why? Because Walt pooped down his leg with the CF'er-that-shall-remain-nameless signing. Anything productive you want to give him credit for in the off-season was MILTON'd when he signed the CF'er-that-shall-remain-nameless.

By doing so, he created irreparable harm to his OF, especially LF. As has been mentioned ad nauseam, how much common sense would it have taken to just plant the cheaper and better Chris Dickerson in CF and even platoon him with a Stubbs and go and get yourself a no field/big bat in LF (Adam Dunn, Juan Rivera, Bobby Abreu, Jermaine Dye, etc., etc.)? But noooooooo, we can't do that, because why would anyone want to come here? Forget the fact that they would play in a bandbox and pad their power numbers. Wow. Let me run this franchise. What an easy paycheck when the fans are so apathetic to free agent signings. You can't fail. There's always a weak excuse.


As far as Masset, "decent" is selling him short.

2.50 ERA
0.93 WHIP
8.2 K/9
2.9 BB/9
0.7 HR/9
3.25 FIP, 1.71 ERC
.177 Gross Production Average Against

Not seeing anything 'decent' about his production this season. He's been very, very good.

Ok, how about "solid"? Still, I'd take Affeldt, if I had to pick between the two (even though Affeldt is a bit more expensive). I do agree Masset was a good acquisition for Junior. No doubt about that. I'm just skeptical the guy has all of a sudden turned into a stud, after two subpar years in Chicago. Who knows, maybe he's our Ryan Franklin. I hope so.

TheNext44
07-24-2009, 10:54 PM
-I'll take Affeldt over Masset (still, I think Masset is decent, but not the bees knees as some on this board)

-I'll take Dunn over Gomes. No comparison offensively. Defense is a wash.

-I'll take Dickerson over Nix. Pretty much a wash at this point, though.


Improved the team?

I don't agree.

I disagree on the first two, when considering salary. Don't know why I have to choose between Dickerson and Nix, since the Reds clearly could have and do have both. Using the Red's depth chart, I believe the more accurate decision is between Nix and Wes Bankston.

Still arguing over these is a sign that Jocketty has not done much yet at the major league level. But as I have stated too often in other posts, he has been more concerned about changing and improving the foundation of the organization than with the current 25 man roster.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2009, 10:54 PM
Get back to me when it's the purpose of an owner to run a business and not profit. Despite our government's attack on capitalism and honest earnings in this country, the purpose of any proprietorship, LLC, corporation or small, medium or large business is to earn capital. That's the goal.

The Reds reside in the smallest media market in America of all markets housing a Major League Baseball franchise. So Cincinnati's share of their own local media revenue is going to be less than most franchises, as you well know, since television and radio stations' rights fees will not be as hire because of market penetration and subsequent ad revenue to justify the rights. Point is, while Reds' ownership as a whole is profiting, no question, each individual is doing what is necessary to make the investment worthwhile and not terribly much beyond that.

However, despite being the smallest media market, Reds' ownership puts the payroll that is near the middle of the pack in annual payroll for the last few years, which is slightly disproportionate to its local media revenue. So instead of being an excuse-maker, I'd rather be a realist. The Reds have room to improve, but I don't expect them to kill their profit margin because of entitled Reds fans wanting to put an assault on capitalism.

The assault on the Reds ownership is not totally inappropriate but more likely misdirected. It's basic economics and they don't favor small markets. If this displeases you perhaps you should go after the CBA's lack of real cap or meaningful salary thresholds.

Nobody is saying the Reds should not make a profit, so don't make strawman arguments because you will get exposed for it here on Redszone. As a business owner myself, I know that the goal is to make a profit. But comparing a baseball franchise to a normal business is disingenuous. The anti-trust exemption given to MLB by the government separates baseball from other industries.

The Reds are not a small market team. As has been pointed out to you before, the Reds' fan base is not limited to the local Cincinnati media market. If you want to understand the strength of the Reds' market you need to add in the folks in Dayton, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Indianapolis, Charleston and other media markets. The Reds' fan base extends over Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. So don't be fooled by the local numbers. The Reds' fan base is in the upper half of the league. Each year the team fields a bargain-basement squad of losers the fan base dwindles -- especially in the outlying areas. If you think the Reds are a small market team you have been drinking the Lindner KoolAid.

The facts have shown that the Reds have the financial resources to greatly increase the player payroll. That is beyond dispute.

History has shown that payroll correlates well with winning baseball games. Teams that are willing to pay for good players tend to win more games. There are plenty of exceptions, but as a general rule teams with high payrolls are more likely to make the playoffs. Of course, spending money foolishly doesn't help much and there are other ways to improve your team besides just spending money, but decades of baseball seasons have proven that high-payroll teams have been more successful.

The Reds had the opportunity to hire players this offseason that would have made this team better, but they didn't do it because they didn't want to pay the salaries. I want an owner that wants to win. I want an owner with a competitive spirit.

Some of the teams with the lowest payrolls are the teams that make the biggest profits. Many of the teams with the worst records have made much larger profits than the winners. The Nationals made $42 million last year. The supposedly poverty-stricken Marlins made $43 million. The Athletics made $26 million. Every team has made $100+ million this decade.

What it comes down to is some teams really want to win and others don't.

As Reds fans we should encourage the team to spend the resources it takes to win rather than making excuses that allow them to continue their highly profitable losing ways. The owners are sitting in their mansions laughing at how foolish the gullible fans are for being so enthusiastic for a team that is not even trying to win.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 10:54 PM
I did miss Masset. That's obviously pathetic considering how long he has been running this team. Even average Joe fan realizes that Walt Jocketty is in over his head. Can't name one casual Reds fan who wasn't laughing/screaming about Mcdonald over Gomes. Honestly it's the most laughable GM decision in recent Reds memory. And that is saying something BIG. It's a pure sign the guy doesn't know what he is doing.

The Darnell McDonald thing had Dusty Baker written all over it. I would seriously wager vital organs that it was Baker that went to bat to make that happen. Jocketty should not have gone along with it, but you got to give your manager some sort of pass once in a while.

Jocketty has proven himself as a general manager. It's one thing to be frustrated by the franchise, but he's already got a ring and been real successful. Franchises don't just win because of tradition or because it's "their way." You have to put people in there that know what they're doing. Jocketty has not yet done anything in Cincinnati as far as results. Fine. I get that. But his track record is better than an awful lot of executives in this sport. To question his ability is silly.

Cedric
07-24-2009, 11:04 PM
The Darnell McDonald thing had Dusty Baker written all over it. I would seriously wager vital organs that it was Baker that went to bat to make that happen. Jocketty should not have gone along with it, but you got to give your manager some sort of pass once in a while.

Jocketty has proven himself as a general manager. It's one thing to be frustrated by the franchise, but he's already got a ring and been real successful. Franchises don't just win because of tradition or because it's "their way." You have to put people in there that know what they're doing. Jocketty has not yet done anything in Cincinnati as far as results. Fine. I get that. But his track record is better than an awful lot of executives in this sport. To question his ability is silly.

He got fired in St. Louis. He was fine when he had top talent already in place. He absolutely killed their farm system and made one of the worst trades in recent memory (Mulder/Haren.)

Stormy wrote much more eloquently on that above. At this point I would argue that Walt Jocketty is Dan O'brien esque. It's almost scary. Womack/Taveres? Inaction and denial causes organization to hold onto players until their value is either nill or the opposing GM's have an upper hand.

A good GM has vision and foresight. Where have we EVER seen that from this GM? Most of us here have known since day one that this team is non competitive. Our GM believes we still have a run in us. That lack of vision is why we haven't moved any valuable assets for our future team. This GM is playing for today because he can't seem to grasp that he built a BAD BAD team. Signing Taveres is enough proof that this man has no idea on how to build a good baseball team.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2009, 11:04 PM
I disagree on the first two, when considering salary.

I understand your point, but we were talking about who makes the Reds better in 2009, compared to 2008, and if you are playing for 2009 (as they told us they were when they lied) a few dollars shouldn't be a factor, especially when they are so liberal with money in certain acquisitions (Lincoln, a certain CF'er that will remain nameless, Weathers, Hernandez, Hairston, etc.)

Cedric
07-24-2009, 11:08 PM
The Darnell McDonald thing had Dusty Baker written all over it. I would seriously wager vital organs that it was Baker that went to bat to make that happen. Jocketty should not have gone along with it, but you got to give your manager some sort of pass once in a while.

Jocketty has proven himself as a general manager. It's one thing to be frustrated by the franchise, but he's already got a ring and been real successful. Franchises don't just win because of tradition or because it's "their way." You have to put people in there that know what they're doing. Jocketty has not yet done anything in Cincinnati as far as results. Fine. I get that. But his track record is better than an awful lot of executives in this sport. To question his ability is silly.

No you shouldn't. Walt Jocketty should NEVER have allowed Darnell Mcdonald to make the 25 man roster. That failure is 100% solely on Jocketty. Why did almost every casual Reds fan know that this man didn't deserve to be on the roster? This isn't Babe Ruth league baseball. The GM is the man who ultimately gets fired for who he assigns to a roster.

And Bob Brenly won a World Series. Does that make him a good manager?

savafan
07-24-2009, 11:13 PM
You could say that it doesn't matter the man's name, the GM has always been the same.

Womack=Patterson=Taveras

savafan
07-24-2009, 11:14 PM
And Bob Brenly won a World Series. Does that make him a good manager?

I could have won a World Series in 2001 with Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling also.

KoryMac5
07-24-2009, 11:16 PM
No way Boras allows Holliday to sign an extension with St. Louis before testing the free agency waters. Boras loves parading his players around from city to city in search of the best offer while getting wined and dined. With the Yankees outfield aging I would imagine Cashman is licking his chops.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2009, 11:23 PM
Don't know why I have to choose between Dickerson and Nix, since the Reds clearly could have and do have both.

Because the discussion was how Walt has made the team better from last year to this year and Nix was used as an example by Brutus. I countered saying I'd take Dickerson, but I don't see an upgrade either way at this point.

Brutus
07-24-2009, 11:33 PM
Nobody is saying the Reds should not make a profit, so don't make strawman arguments because you will get exposed for it here on Redszone. As a business owner myself, I know that the goal is to make a profit. But comparing a baseball franchise to a normal business is disingenuous. The anti-trust exemption given to MLB by the government separates baseball from other industries.

The Reds are not a small market team. As has been pointed out to you before, the Reds' fan base is not limited to the local Cincinnati media market. If you want to understand the strength of the Reds' market you need to add in the folks in Dayton, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Indianapolis, Charleston and other media markets. The Reds' fan base extends over Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. So don't be fooled by the local numbers. The Reds' fan base is in the upper half of the league. Each year the team fields a bargain-basement squad of losers the fan base dwindles -- especially in the outlying areas. If you think the Reds are a small market team you have been drinking the Lindner KoolAid.

The facts have shown that the Reds have the financial resources to greatly increase the player payroll. That is beyond dispute.

History has shown that payroll correlates well with winning baseball games. Teams that are willing to pay for good players tend to win more games. There are plenty of exceptions, but as a general rule teams with high payrolls are more likely to make the playoffs. Of course, spending money foolishly doesn't help much and there are other ways to improve your team besides just spending money, but decades of baseball seasons have proven that high-payroll teams have been more successful.

The Reds had the opportunity to hire players this offseason that would have made this team better, but they didn't do it because they didn't want to pay the salaries. I want an owner that wants to win. I want an owner with a competitive spirit.

Some of the teams with the lowest payrolls are the teams that make the biggest profits. Many of the teams with the worst records have made much larger profits than the winners. The Nationals made $42 million last year. The supposedly poverty-stricken Marlins made $43 million. The Athletics made $26 million. Every team has made $100+ million this decade.

What it comes down to is some teams really want to win and others don't.

As Reds fans we should encourage the team to spend the resources it takes to win rather than making excuses that allow them to continue their highly profitable losing ways. The owners are sitting in their mansions laughing at how foolish the gullible fans are for being so enthusiastic for a team that is not even trying to win.

I'm not making strawman arguments. You literally said in another thread you wanted an owner that didn't care about making money. You said it would be nice to have ownership that throws profit out the window and just wants to win. I'll pull the quote up if you don't remember it, but when you make a post like that, it's not a strawman argument.

As a business owner, I'm sure you continue to maximize your profits to the fullest effect until (or unless) it starts to hurt your business. If your product truly suffers, it will show in sales and profits will tumble. Unless that happens, a business owner will think like a business owner. Problem is, you're not thinking like a business owner in this discussion, you're thinking like a fan.

I don't believe for a second Bob Castellini does not have a competitive spirit. He went out and doubled the amount he was paying his manager & general manager to get some very recognizable names. With the expectation that ticket sales might have been affected this season, and reading the tea leaves in the organization, I still surmise the decision was made not to add payroll unless it helped beyond this season. Looking around Major League baseball this offseason, there did not seem to be much in the way of that sort of help available. Clearly you're going to continue to stand by your assertion it's all greed, but since neither one of us have access to the books (and as good as a job as Forbes does, neither do they), we'll not know the real truth.

Further, you continue to use the word profit to describe the Forbes link. But again, that is before operating expenses and all debt load beyond that of stadium debt. So those numbers are still not quite what you're making them out to be. And to respond to your earlier point, yes Amortization and Depreciation lower the tax burden, but it still does not take away their taxes are not accounted for in your version of profit.



The Reds are not a small market team. As has been pointed out to you before, the Reds' fan base is not limited to the local Cincinnati media market. If you want to understand the strength of the Reds' market you need to add in the folks in Dayton, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Indianapolis, Charleston and other media markets. The Reds' fan base extends over Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. So don't be fooled by the local numbers. The Reds' fan base is in the upper half of the league. Each year the team fields a bargain-basement squad of losers the fan base dwindles -- especially in the outlying areas. If you think the Reds are a small market team you have been drinking the Lindner KoolAid.

And that amounts to very little in terms of media rights, which is all that matters when discussing the size of media markets. I'm not drinking any kool aid. I have a very experienced background in studying this for my profession. I don't need any lessons on it. What you're describing absolutely influences attendance but it means a hill of beans when WLW or FSN go to re-up their broadcast deals. And while the Reds might have a large fan base, their attendance numbers have not shown it in recent seasons (which obviously hurts when you're not bringing in a large amount of local media revenue).

Attendance Rank

2009 No. 20
2008 No. 23
2007 No. 24
2006 No. 22
2005 No. 25
2004 No. 18
2003 No. 20
2002 No. 21

Regardless of the reasons, the Reds have been in the 33 percentile of MLB attendance only once in the past eight seasons including this one. Mix that in with one of the bottom five local revenues in all of Major Leage Baseball, and you have a team that is not financially in position to add a lot of payroll relative to the league. And despite these woeful numbers, the Reds have been averaging almost 45 percentile in payroll the last three seasons.

Yea the Reds might have a large geographic base of fans, but this only matters for being able to hear it on WLW (which does not impact the media deals because the formulas they use to determine broadcast rights is home markets) or to come into town to watch. Clearly not enough people are going.

Compare that to the large markets where they have a large portion of people in a small area, they have much, much higher media revenues and a gigantic amount of people going to to their cities for business and will take in a game because it's the Yankees, the Cubs, the Dodgers, the Phillies, etc.

Bottom line is there is no owner in MLB that does not want to win. I'm sure plenty of them are content as long as they're turning a profit, but that does not mean they don't want to do as much as possible within their resources. But there's a limit to that. These teams are drawing lines in the sand within acceptable amounts of income to make their investments worthwhile. And again, regardless of whether MLB is judgment proof when it comes to the Sherman Act, it does not change the fact that anti-trust laws or not, these guys are still business owners. They're still in this as a business. The players treat it as a business so why shouldn't the owners? The fact that the Sherman Act does not apply means very little. This is still the business world.

As a customer you have two options. You can continue to buy the product or if you are dissatisfied, you can do something else. If people stop watching and stop attending completely, and voice their displeasure, the profits, however large, will dwindle and ownership will be forced to sell off or start taking on bigger assets. Of course you run the risk of the ownership looking to move, but if you're clearly that unhappy with an unsuccessful product, that should not matter. Right?

If ownership really didn't want to win, we would not be sitting here on six managers in 10 seasons and a fourth general manager in the same amount of time. If they didn't care, then they'd have been just as happy making all this profit you're suggesting they're making and as long as the GM and CFO handles the budget properly then all is well.

backbencher
07-24-2009, 11:36 PM
All debts and expenses have been included in the numbers.

Not true, and not even Forbes claims it is true. Among other things, it's pretty clear that the numbers do not include the debt used to acquire the franchise. That debt may not be held by the franchise itself, but it certainly is relevant when you are talking about the owners' cashflow.



the Reds profit is likely higher

Not to the extent that you use "profit" to mean either "take-home" or "take-home plus asset appreciation."



Amortization and depreciation increase profit by lowering taxes.

Eh - not really accurate, but not entirely inaccurate. Not at all relevant, however, as you use the term "profit." The Forbes operating income numbers that you cite already exclude taxes.

WMR
07-24-2009, 11:37 PM
For a pathetic, loser organization, firing the cheaply-paid manager is an excellent resource to "lure back" some fans when your pathetic product has finally driven them away. I'd hardly consider going through a bunch of managers making relative pauper's wages as some sort of dictum that ownership actually gives a blank. Same applies to GMs.

Now if they were to axe Dusty and bring in someone with a different philosophy I'd be impressed.

But who am I kidding, this is the organization that actually gave Bill Bavasi a job that didn't include asking "Can I supersize that for you?".

Cedric
07-24-2009, 11:41 PM
Wanting to win and actually knowing how to win are two completely different things. I think Cast honestly believed that bringing in Dusty and Walt would bring fans in. I think it was an economic decision on the Dusty part at least.

It doesn't mean ownership wants to win just because they keep hiring new managers/gm's. It's just another way to fake the fans into thinking you care. Same as the "we just aren't going to lose anymore" crap lines.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-25-2009, 12:00 AM
One can dream, but how about a majority owner that is so filthy loaded that he views owning a baseball franchise as a hobby and he doesn't mind breaking even.

That's what Cincinnati needs. Until then, it will only be excuses.

And as for attendance, it really stirs up that tired chicken and egg argument. IMO, if you invest (and win) they will come. Now, I do realize that Cincy will probably never quite draw like a STL. Even in the 70's when the Reds were on top of the world, they hovered around 2.5M. But I'll tell you, if they can invest and make this team a winner that advances to the playoffs every other year, there is a city up I-71 that is ready to blow up Red.

Columbus should not be forgotten. I know so many people up here that love the Reds, but are so disgusted with the last decade that they have given up on making the trek down 71 (myself included).

I'm not kidding. Even though the Indians have done a better job marketing their more successful franchise, this is NO DOUBT Reds country up here. As someone already mentioned, the kids that grew up with BRM (like me) all are grown up now and even if their kids care more about Pokemon, their Wii's, or even the Indians, it's still the 50, 40 and 30-something's that are going to be bringing their wallets and forcing their family to enjoy with them the resurgence of their childhood team.

Columbus is a sleeping giant. I'm sure there are many other towns and cities in Reds country that are the same.

Show me you care.

Show me you are competent.

Show me you will stop at nothing to bring this franchise success.

Show me no amount of money is too much.

"SHOW ME THE WINNING."

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 12:01 AM
I'm not making strawman arguments. You literally said in another thread you wanted an owner that didn't care about making money. You said it would be nice to have ownership that throws profit out the window and just wants to win. I'll pull the quote up if you don't remember it, but when you make a post like that, it's not a strawman argument.

As a business owner, I'm sure you continue to maximize your profits to the fullest effect until (or unless) it starts to hurt your business. If your product truly suffers, it will show in sales and profits will tumble. Unless that happens, a business owner will think like a business owner. Problem is, you're not thinking like a business owner in this discussion, you're thinking like a fan.

I don't believe for a second Bob Castellini does not have a competitive spirit. He went out and doubled the amount he was paying his manager & general manager to get some very recognizable names. With the expectation that ticket sales might have been affected this season, and reading the tea leaves in the organization, I still surmise the decision was made not to add payroll unless it helped beyond this season. Looking around Major League baseball this offseason, there did not seem to be much in the way of that sort of help available. Clearly you're going to continue to stand by your assertion it's all greed, but since neither one of us have access to the books (and as good as a job as Forbes does, neither do they), we'll not know the real truth.

Further, you continue to use the word profit to describe the Forbes link. But again, that is before operating expenses and all debt load beyond that of stadium debt. So those numbers are still not quite what you're making them out to be. And to respond to your earlier point, yes Amortization and Depreciation lower the tax burden, but it still does not take away their taxes are not accounted for in your version of profit.



And that amounts to very little in terms of media rights, which is all that matters when discussing the size of media markets. I'm not drinking any kool aid. I have a very experienced background in studying this for my profession. I don't need any lessons on it. What you're describing absolutely influences attendance but it means a hill of beans when WLW or FSN go to re-up their broadcast deals. And while the Reds might have a large fan base, their attendance numbers have not shown it in recent seasons (which obviously hurts when you're not bringing in a large amount of local media revenue).

Attendance Rank

2009 No. 20
2008 No. 23
2007 No. 24
2006 No. 22
2005 No. 25
2004 No. 18
2003 No. 20
2002 No. 21

Regardless of the reasons, the Reds have been in the 33 percentile of MLB attendance only once in the past eight seasons including this one. Mix that in with one of the bottom five local revenues in all of Major Leage Baseball, and you have a team that is not financially in position to add a lot of payroll relative to the league. And despite these woeful numbers, the Reds have been averaging almost 45 percentile in payroll the last three seasons.

Yea the Reds might have a large geographic base of fans, but this only matters for being able to hear it on WLW (which does not impact the media deals because the formulas they use to determine broadcast rights is home markets) or to come into town to watch. Clearly not enough people are going.

Compare that to the large markets where they have a large portion of people in a small area, they have much, much higher media revenues and a gigantic amount of people going to to their cities for business and will take in a game because it's the Yankees, the Cubs, the Dodgers, the Phillies, etc.

Bottom line is there is no owner in MLB that does not want to win. I'm sure plenty of them are content as long as they're turning a profit, but that does not mean they don't want to do as much as possible within their resources. But there's a limit to that. These teams are drawing lines in the sand within acceptable amounts of income to make their investments worthwhile. And again, regardless of whether MLB is judgment proof when it comes to the Sherman Act, it does not change the fact that anti-trust laws or not, these guys are still business owners. They're still in this as a business. The players treat it as a business so why shouldn't the owners? The fact that the Sherman Act does not apply means very little. This is still the business world.

As a customer you have two options. You can continue to buy the product or if you are dissatisfied, you can do something else. If people stop watching and stop attending completely, and voice their displeasure, the profits, however large, will dwindle and ownership will be forced to sell off or start taking on bigger assets. Of course you run the risk of the ownership looking to move, but if you're clearly that unhappy with an unsuccessful product, that should not matter. Right?

If ownership really didn't want to win, we would not be sitting here on six managers in 10 seasons and a fourth general manager in the same amount of time. If they didn't care, then they'd have been just as happy making all this profit you're suggesting they're making and as long as the GM and CFO handles the budget properly then all is well.

You are intentionally misrepresenting the case I have made. Let me state it again so you can understand it: The Reds have the resources to dramatically improve the team. You can quibble over the amount. You can obfuscate with long boring posts of fantasy to hide the reality. But you cannot disprove the fact that the Reds have made huge profits while fielding a lousy team for many years. Why must you argue against the obvious?

Your long post is just a big long excuse for a loser. You have not said anything that disproves the fact that the Reds make a huge profit every year while fielding a pathetic team.

You have not said anything that shows the Reds do not have the resources to dramatically increase the payroll.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the Reds have made hundreds of millions of dollars this decade that have gone into the owners' pockets while the team has been awful.

You can misunderstand the economics all you want, but anybody that cares to look can see the facts. The Reds have been terrible while the owners have made huge, huge, huge profits.

Time to stop making excuses.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 12:06 AM
One can dream, but how about a majority owner that is so filthy loaded that he views owning a baseball franchise as a hobby and he doesn't mind breaking even.

That's what Cincinnati needs. Until then, it will only be excuses.

And as for attendance, it really stirs up that tired chicken and egg argument. IMO, if you invest (and win) they will come. Now, I do realize that Cincy will probably never quite draw like a STL. Even in the 70's when the Reds were on top of the world, they hovered around 2.5M. But I'll tell you, if they can invest and make this team a winner that advances to the playoffs every other year, there is a city up I-71 that is ready to blow up Red.

Columbus should not be forgotten. I know so many people up here that love the Reds, but are so disgusted with the last decade that they have given up on making the trek down 71 (myself included).

I'm not kidding. Even though the Indians have done a better job marketing their more successful franchise, this is NO DOUBT Reds country up here. As someone already mentioned, the kids that grew up with BRM (like me) all are grown up now and even if their kids care more about Pokemon, their Wii's, or even the Indians, it's still the 50, 40 and 30-something's that are going to be bringing their wallets and forcing their family to enjoy with them the resurgence of their childhood team.

Columbus is a sleeping giant. I'm sure there are many other towns and cities in Reds country that are the same.

Show me you care.

Show me you are competent.

Show me you will stop at nothing to bring this franchise success.

Show me no amount of money is too much.

"SHOW ME THE WINNING."

Excellent post. :thumbup:

There are owners like that out there. Lots of them.

savafan
07-25-2009, 12:08 AM
According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_Cincinnati-Reds_332528.html)


1-Yr Value Chg. 2%
Ann. Value Chg. NA
Debt/Value 12%
Revenue $171 mil
Operating Inc. $17.0 mil
Player Expenses $93 mil
Gate Receipts $45 mil


Team Value $342 mil

The Cincinnati Reds
are owned by Robert Castellini,
who bought them in 2006
for $270 mil.

2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio 96


http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/332528_2.gif

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/val332528.gif
http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/rev332528.gif
http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/op332528.gif
http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/exp332528.gif
http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2009/trps332528.gif

Brutus
07-25-2009, 12:20 AM
You are intentionally misrepresenting the case I have made. Let me state it again so you can understand it: The Reds have the resources to dramatically improve the team. You can quibble over the amount. You can obfuscate with long boring posts of fantasy to hide the reality. But you cannot disprove the fact that the Reds have made huge profits while fielding a lousy team for many years. Why must you argue against the obvious?

Your long post is just a big long excuse for a loser. You have not said anything that disproves the fact that the Reds make a huge profit every year while fielding a pathetic team.

You have not said anything that shows the Reds do not have the resources to dramatically increase the payroll.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the Reds have made hundreds of millions of dollars this decade that has gone into the owners' pockets while the team has been awful.

You can misunderstand the economics all you want, but anybody that cares to look can see the facts. The Reds have been terrible while the owners have made huge, huge, huge profits.

Time to stop making excuses.

I don't know how I've misrepresented anything. I said from the very get-go I disagree wholeheartedly about having the resources. I even narrowed down my belief of how much the club is taking in. I believe the Reds, on average, probably have no more than $10 mil per season to take in without being in the Red. But that's a whole lot of shareholders with money in the coffers that would not be happy about drawing pennies on their dividends check.

I'm not obfuscating anything but reality, not some sense of entitlement from a frustrated fan. If reality bores you, I'm sorry. But I'm speaking not from a fan's standpoint (from that standpoint, I'm just as sick of it as you are), but rather from someone that has spoken with many people on this subject for my profession. Combining that with economics and business principals, and it's not about excuses, it's about numbers.

I've posted the attendance numbers. I've posted that the Reds are the absolute smallest media market in the nation with an MLB franchise. I've posted the Reds are in the bottom five of MLB in local revenue from broadcasting rights. There's your major sources of income right there and the Reds are no better than 33 percentile of all franchises in attendance (and since their average price per ticket is actually still one of the cheaper in baseball, they're clearly not taking in as high a profit margin on gate receipts). I'm sorry that the facts bore you, but there they are right out in the open.

Relative to Major League Baseball, Cincinnati is by every sense of the word, a small market team. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. I could care less what they do with their money. I want to see the Reds compete, and I'm sure there's always a little more they can do but this is the reality of baseball without a cap.

Every time one of realities of the situation is brought into play (sources of income, rank in attendance, rank in media revenue, etc.), you have accused me of strawman arguments, obfuscating reality or misrepresenting your arguments. The deflection attempts have done nothing to prove your opinions, any more than you say I've not proven anything. Heck, even the "profits" you keep using are not even profits. They are income before operating expenses, taxes and the like. That's not profit, but you keep citing those numbers as your proof.

Clearly, your mind is made up. That's fine. If it makes you feel better to justify the Reds lack of success as the owners simply hoarding an embarrassment of riches as they laugh at us 'gullible' folk all the way to the bank, then that's your prerogative. But since this is a widespread problem over half of the Major League franchises, something tells me it's not just Reds ownership. They're spending the money they feel comfortable while maintaining a profit margin, IMHO. I'm fine with that. It's the way to run a business.

As I said before, I think the real issue is with the salary structure of MLB. Oh, and the Reds' lack of continuity has not helped the franchise, either.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-25-2009, 12:22 AM
Excellent post. :thumbup:

There are owners like that out there. Lots of them.

Thanks. The first thing I do once I make my first billion, is freeing this franchise from the cheapskates that currently hold a death grip on it.

Then I'll be recruiting my front office from the Redszone.

:)

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 12:23 AM
Thanks savafan for the stats and the link. Seeing that player expenses for 2009 actually went UP was a surprise. Click on the link and read the "skinny" on the team and this is the last sentence:

If fans decide not to pay more for tickets during the recession, despite the added value of food and beverages, the team's value will decline because their sponsorship and television revenue can not pick up the slack.

backbencher
07-25-2009, 12:35 AM
The Reds are not a small market team.

Nonsense.

Let's say that MLB is 1/3 "large market," 1/3 "middle market" and 1/3 "small market." Please let us know which 10 teams are small market, while the Reds are not.

As a point of reference, there are 11 teams that had lower opening day payroll than the Reds.



As has been pointed out to you before, the Reds' fan base is not limited to the local Cincinnati media market. If you want to understand the strength of the Reds' market you need to add in the folks in Dayton, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Indianapolis, Charleston and other media markets. The Reds' fan base extends over Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee.

There are three issues here.

The first is that the point that the Reds draw fans from outside of metro Cincinnati is a point that you can make about every team in baseball. Every MLB media market has other major metros as close as, or closer than, much of the area that you have defined as the Reds market.

The second is that for many of those markets, the MLB team sits in something like a regional capital - that is, a metro area that is the center of economic and cultural gravity for the area. Think NYC (the state of NY, western CT, nothern NJ, some of PA), Boston (eastern CT and the balance of New England), Seattle (the Pacific Northwest), Denver (the high plains and Rocky Mountains - much of an entire time zone, really). Cincinnati's not like that. I'm talking about cultural strength, not just population here, but try this on for size - Cincinnati proper is smaller than Louisville, Indianapolis and Columbus. It's not even close to being the "biggest" city in the region, much less something like a regional capital.

The third is that to use the term "Reds' market," you have to have some concept of monetization. I wholeheartedly agree that the Reds do, and need to, and must continue to, consider their "market" as something much broader than metro Cinci. Still, metro Cincinnati is where the bread always will be buttered. It's really only the metro Cincinnati fans that can regularly attend weekday games, which is about 2/3 of the games. It's really only the metro Cincinnati fans that provide the walk-ups. It's really only the metro Cincinnati businesses that can use club seats and luxury boxes. It's really only metro Cincinnati fans that any local advertising - car dealerships, say - can target, as the level of fandom diffuses as you get farther and farther from the stadium.


I have to say, this has been an entertaining week on this board. Three things that I never thought I'd read:

1. That Bob Castellini, who succeeded Marge Schott and Carl Lindner, hired the most expensive manager in baseball, approved the only premium free agent signing in the history of the Reds franchise, outspent his predecessors by a factor of at least two to acquire minor league talent, and gave big contract extensions to Harang, Arroyo and Phillips, could be called "cheap." Guilty of approving bad baseball moves - sure. Misusing the team's limited resources - sure. But cheap, compared to the recent history of this franchise? Comedy gold.

2. That Bob Castellini, former Cardinals minority owner and employer of the Cardinals WS-winning GM, was failing to grasp the Cardinals' path to success.

3. That Cincinnati, wonderful city that it is, could ever be considered anything other than "small market" in the economics of baseball.

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 12:39 AM
For a pathetic, loser organization, firing the cheaply-paid manager is an excellent resource to "lure back" some fans when your pathetic product has finally driven them away. I'd hardly consider going through a bunch of managers making relative pauper's wages as some sort of dictum that ownership actually gives a blank. Same applies to GMs.

Now if they were to axe Dusty and bring in someone with a different philosophy I'd be impressed.

But who am I kidding, this is the organization that actually gave Bill Bavasi a job that didn't include asking "Can I supersize that for you?".
So fire Dusty now, or after the season, and see IF someone is available that's better? I just want to make sure I understand you right cuz I think some do think that. Now wouldn't that be compounding a mistake by just throwing money at the problem?

I have no problem with letting Dusty go when his contract is up after the 2010 season. But to do that now would mean, possibly, having twice as much money tied up in the manager position and maybe gaining a couple wins due to only the new manager. Is that the best way to use the money you have? Or do you think a manager alone can mean 10+ more wins?

We've had way too many managers (and general managers and field directors and owners... ) over the last 30 years. Do we really need to have a new manager every 2 years???

Let the contract run its course and THEN find a better replacement.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 12:46 AM
By the way, I posted the attendance figures a few posts up, showing the Reds have not cracked the 33 percentile even in average attendance but once in the past eight years. And since the Reds have one of the top five cheapest tickets in baseball, their gate income is obviously very low relative to many franchises.

Well, here is the order of the top 50 media markets by number of penetrated households in America as of 2006.

(Markets with MLB affiliation bolded)


Rank City
1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Philadelphia
5 Boston
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth
8 Washington, DC
9 Atlanta
10 Houston
11 Detroit
12 Tampa-St. Petersburg
13 Seattle-Tacoma
14 Phoenix
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul
16 Cleveland-Akron
17 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
18 Denver
19 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
20 Orlando-Daytona Beach
21 St. Louis
22 Pittsburgh
23 Portland, Oregon
24 Baltimore
25 Indianapolis
26 San Diego
27 Charlotte
28 Hartford-New Haven
29 Raleigh-Durham
30 Nashville
31 Kansas City, Missouri
32 Columbus, Ohio
33 Milwaukee
34 Cincinnati
35 Greenville-Spartanburg, Asheville, Anderson
36 Salt Lake City
37 San Antonio
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo
40 Birmingham
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster
42 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
43 New Orleans
44 Memphis
45 Oklahoma City
46 Albuquerque-Santa Fe
47 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, NC
48 Las Vegas
49 Buffalo
50 Louisville, KY


By the way, even combining the Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville markets, Cincinnati would not crack the top 20 in household penetration, hence their disadvantage whenever renegotiating with FSN and WLW for television and radio rights.

backbencher
07-25-2009, 12:50 AM
It is an incontrovertible fact that the Reds have made hundreds of millions of dollars this decade that have gone into the owners' pockets

You are either

(a) claiming that Lindner made a lot of money on the Reds, which may be true, but which has very little to do with Castellini's ability to pump cash into the team;

or

(b) using one of these words in a way that is not familiar to me: "incontrovertible" "fact" "hundreds of millions" "dollars" "pockets."

BuckeyeRedleg
07-25-2009, 12:59 AM
By the way, I posted the attendance figures a few posts up, showing the Reds have not cracked the 33 percentile even in average attendance but once in the past eight years.

And that proves what?

That people don't come out and get all crazy over a loser?

That I'd agree with.

From 1981 to 1996, even the mighty Yankees only drew 2.5M one time (1988).

backbencher
07-25-2009, 01:01 AM
Thanks savafan for the stats and the link. Seeing that player expenses for 2009 actually went UP was a surprise.

Wait - you mean that the current ownership group has increased player expenses by 60% from the time it acquired the franchise? An average of 15% a year? That's unpossible!

Just don't try to tell me that it is risky to borrow against estimated appreciations in asset value. Because I know that nothing bad ever could come from that.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-25-2009, 01:12 AM
1. That Bob Castellini, who succeeded Marge Schott and Carl Lindner, hired the most expensive manager in baseball, approved the only premium free agent signing in the history of the Reds franchise, outspent his predecessors by a factor of at least two to acquire minor league talent, and gave big contract extensions to Harang, Arroyo and Phillips, could be called "cheap." Guilty of approving bad baseball moves - sure. Misusing the team's limited resources - sure. But cheap, compared to the recent history of this franchise? Comedy gold.

So he gets kudos for taking over a franchise that had cheaper owners before him?

Wow, to be judged by such low standards.

Great. He's not quite as cheap, but he also makes bad baseball moves and misuses resources, just as his predecessors did.

What a great gig......and he makes money.

Sign me up!

Patrick Bateman
07-25-2009, 01:14 AM
I dunno.

I myself would call the Nick Masset acquisition a solid one.

And for the cost, acquiring Laynce Nix has looked all right for a reclamation project. Jonny Gomes has been deadly against left-handers and decent enough worth using against some right-handers too.

Those aren't championship additions, but to say they haven't improved the team, in my opinion, is selling it short.

Heck, Masset, for a majority of the season, has been lights out.

Every team makes moves like these. Guys like Gomes and Nix are your basic platoon guys. Lots of similar players available for similar cost. Because they are spotted playing time, and have little sample to work with, these guys will look like prizes, and other times, they will find themselves available for free. But neither guy has really shown anything that projection systems couldn't have predicted.

Talking long run, I can't think of one guy that Jocketty has picked up that I expect to play a meaningful role. Ya, guys like Masset have a role, and he's been an above average reliever, but how much does that matter? A win a year? Krivsky got guys like that, but what good did that do him?

It's nothing more than roster shuffling. The Reds need a talent influx in basically every way possible. Roster churning will not cut it. So you can hold onto the Massett's of the world for proof that the guy has done something to contribute, but in total, Jocketty's ledger doesn't have one particularly meaningful cog in, making it difficult for me to care that he managed to pick up some useable role players.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 01:15 AM
And that proves what?

That people don't come out and get all crazy over a loser?

That I'd agree with.

From 1981 to 1996, even the mighty Yankees only drew 2.5M one time (1988).

I'm being told the Reds have all this money floating around compared to most franchises, and I'm trying to figure out where it's coming from considering these facts.

* It's not coming from attendance. Not even cracking top 20 in people coming through the turnstiles * one of the cheaper tickets on baseball = less gate revenue than many franchises

* It's not coming from television revenue. Bottom five in all of baseball.

* It's not coming from radio. Though Cincinnati ranks a little higher as a market in radio than household penetration, the WLW contract, last I saw, was only bigger than 7-8 teams in baseball.

* It's not coming from luxury payments as that goes to the bottom quartile in payroll.

* Apparel and licensing goes through Major League Baseball as well as National Media Broadcasting rights and is distributed through the annual franchise distribution equally.

I'm not saying the Reds don't turn a profit. What I'm saying is that the result is Forbes as having the Reds as No. 25 this year in revenue with $170 mil. Yet, the Reds opened the season with a payroll higher than 12 teams. So clearly they're spending more disproportionately against revenue than is being alleged.

In 2008, the Reds were No. 23 in revenue & No. 18 in opening day payroll.

In 2007, No. 23 again in revenue and No. 19 in opening day payroll.

So the Reds are spending proportionately better than other teams around baseball recently. That's what my point is.

Cedric
07-25-2009, 01:22 AM
The Brewers were small market like five years ago. Winning changes everything. And winning means having good decision makers in key leadership positions.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-25-2009, 01:23 AM
From 1981 to 1996, even the mighty Yankees only drew 2.5M one time (1988).

To expand on this point, from 1976 (the first year Yankee Stadium II was opened) to 1997 the Reds drew over 2.4 million fans five times ('76, '77, '78, '90, and '93).

The mighty Yankees?

Six times ('79, '80, '87, '88, '93, and '97).

The Yankees one it all in 1996 and have never looked back. I don't expect the Reds to spend like the Yankees, but crying poor and going half-ass ain't working either.

Build a winner and they will come. To expect otherwise is backwards.

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 01:29 AM
And that proves what?

That people don't come out and get all crazy over a loser?

That I'd agree with.

From 1981 to 1996, even the mighty Yankees only drew 2.5M one time (1988).
Maybe that the Reds aren't the Chicago Cubs? Even when the Cubbies haven't been that good on the field they've still drawn significantly more fans than Cincy. It's just a bigger local market. Apples and oranges.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 01:29 AM
The Brewers were small market like five years ago. Winning changes everything. And winning means having good decision makers in key leadership positions.

The Brewers won because for the longest time they were poor. Finally, they got people in there that were able to home grow talent. And now, they're using their homegrown talent to ride the wave of success. Even the Brewers have not done a lick on the free agent market. They are to be credited for trading for C.C. Sabathia, but their fans are also regretting giving up LaPorta in hindsight.

Despite the Brewers being a comparable market, but now 'successful', the Brewers opened this season with a payroll of just over $6 mil more than the Reds. Not exactly a huge discrepancy.

It took the Brewers a LONG time of being very bad to get to this point. They did it solely with in-house talent. Not free agent signings but loading up the farm with all those top 10 picks and finally it paying off with guys maturing all at once.

The Reds' farm system is potentially in a situation where that might pay off for them right around the corner. And while it's fair to say "wait until next year" as our 'add to the payroll' rallying cry these past several years, unlike those seasons, the Reds' system is finally loaded with talent to fill out the roster.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-25-2009, 01:33 AM
Maybe that the Reds aren't the Chicago Cubs? Even when the Cubbies haven't been that good on the field they've still drawn significantly more fans than Cincy. It's just a bigger local market. Apples and oranges.

My point is that if the Reds start winning consistently they will draw their share of fans. Keep winning and it will snowball. Big market or not.

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 01:37 AM
Agreed. And my point is that when the wins don't come it's pretty obvious the difference between smaller and bigger market teams.

edit: If the Reds win more attendance will rise. That's not in dispute. But it's also true that the lower attendance now hurts the bottom line more than other clubs. Chicago could have a lousy season and they would still attract 30,000+. The Reds have to win just to hope to get to 30,000.

reds44
07-25-2009, 02:07 AM
My point is that if the Reds start winning consistently they will draw their share of fans. Keep winning and it will snowball. Big market or not.
Ding. Attendance is a self fulfilling prophecy. You lose, people don't want to come watch. You are strapped for cash. You win, people show up, you're payroll goes up. The Cardinals draw a lot of fans because they are a good organization who consistenly fields a competitve team. If they sucked like the Reds, the so called best fans in baseball would stop showing up eventually as well.

The problem is, you can't spend money until you draw fans. The Reds are going to have to find some way to field a competitive team, and once they do that attendance and payroll will go up.

It's not like the Reds have sucked forever.

I'm not going to blame the Reds inability to win on Walt, Krivsky, or even O'Brien. It all goes on the people who allowed the Reds to reach the point to where the franchise went in the toliet. The Reds never have enough money to do anything. In the Griffey/Dunn era they were always strapped for cash because of them, and post Griffey and Dunn they are strapped for cash because of Harang and Arroyo. Once they are gone, they'll be strapped for cash because of Votto and Bruce, or Volquez and Cueto or so on. They have to find some way to manage smart, highly paid players with prospects. Once they do that, get a winner, the people will come and the wins will continue to follow.

Castelini needs to pick a guy and give him 5 good years to try to develop something, whatever it may be. I think he likes Walt as that guy, so I can't see him going anywhere. Hopefully they have to brass to fire Dusty and this sad array of coaches though, because this offensive approach will never be succesful. It sucks, but we need to stay patient because pulling a Krivsky and peeing all over ourself at the first sign of contention and set us back awhile. The Reds desperatley needed a bat, everbody knows that. But I'd rather sit here and watch this garbage for a season then have another decade of teh suck. Every GM makes bad moves and signs bad contracts. Walt doesn't have the ability to cover it up by spending out his rear end though.

And there is the most rational post I've had in about a month. This team is driving me nuts.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 03:31 AM
I don't know how I've misrepresented anything. I said from the very get-go I disagree wholeheartedly about having the resources. I even narrowed down my belief of how much the club is taking in. I believe the Reds, on average, probably have no more than $10 mil per season to take in without being in the Red. But that's a whole lot of shareholders with money in the coffers that would not be happy about drawing pennies on their dividends check.

I'm not obfuscating anything but reality, not some sense of entitlement from a frustrated fan. If reality bores you, I'm sorry. But I'm speaking not from a fan's standpoint (from that standpoint, I'm just as sick of it as you are), but rather from someone that has spoken with many people on this subject for my profession. Combining that with economics and business principals, and it's not about excuses, it's about numbers.

I've posted the attendance numbers. I've posted that the Reds are the absolute smallest media market in the nation with an MLB franchise. I've posted the Reds are in the bottom five of MLB in local revenue from broadcasting rights. There's your major sources of income right there and the Reds are no better than 33 percentile of all franchises in attendance (and since their average price per ticket is actually still one of the cheaper in baseball, they're clearly not taking in as high a profit margin on gate receipts). I'm sorry that the facts bore you, but there they are right out in the open.

Relative to Major League Baseball, Cincinnati is by every sense of the word, a small market team. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. I could care less what they do with their money. I want to see the Reds compete, and I'm sure there's always a little more they can do but this is the reality of baseball without a cap.

Every time one of realities of the situation is brought into play (sources of income, rank in attendance, rank in media revenue, etc.), you have accused me of strawman arguments, obfuscating reality or misrepresenting your arguments. The deflection attempts have done nothing to prove your opinions, any more than you say I've not proven anything. Heck, even the "profits" you keep using are not even profits. They are income before operating expenses, taxes and the like. That's not profit, but you keep citing those numbers as your proof.

Clearly, your mind is made up. That's fine. If it makes you feel better to justify the Reds lack of success as the owners simply hoarding an embarrassment of riches as they laugh at us 'gullible' folk all the way to the bank, then that's your prerogative. But since this is a widespread problem over half of the Major League franchises, something tells me it's not just Reds ownership. They're spending the money they feel comfortable while maintaining a profit margin, IMHO. I'm fine with that. It's the way to run a business.

As I said before, I think the real issue is with the salary structure of MLB. Oh, and the Reds' lack of continuity has not helped the franchise, either.

The poor, destitute Reds just don't have a chance against the big, mean Yankees. We Reds fans in pathetic little Cincinnati are just lucky to have a team. :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

The attendance and media market size and all that is confusing you to the big picture: The Reds make a huge profit every year despite the attendance, ticket prices, market size etc. Can't you see that?

The profits are huge every year. Yes you have to pay taxes on your profits in America. But they are still profits.

Just because the Reds have multiple stockholders doesn't mean anything. The profit is the same no matter how many people get to divvy it up. The team is highly profitable. You can't deny it.

The Reds have the resources to dramatically increase the payroll and improve the team. Case closed. No more excuses.

The fans need to start demanding a winning team in this city. Castellini needs to feel some pressure from the fanbase. Do you think the fans in cities like Philadelphia, Boston, New York and St. Louis would meekly accept a losing team without a whimper of complaint? I don't think so. So why do we accept it and even make excuses for the profiteering owner? Because we are losers here in Cincy I guess. We have lost for so long in baseball and football that we can't even comprehend what it takes to win.

I for one will stand up and demand a winner. Will you?

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 03:59 AM
The fans need to start demanding a winning team in this city. Castellini needs to feel some pressure from the fanbase. Do you think the fans in cities like Philadelphia, Boston, New York and St. Louis would meekly accept a losing team without a whimper of complaint? I don't think so. So why do we accept it and even make excuses for the profiteering owner? Because we are losers here in Cincy I guess. We have lost for so long in baseball and football that we can't even comprehend what it takes to win.

I for one will stand up and demand a winner. Will you?
Weren't there some Bengal fans that started a protest? I don't agree with most of what you're saying AD but if you want to start a protest feel free. Who knows maybe it will do some good.

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 04:08 AM
Hmmm....



The Reds are not a small market team. As has been pointed out to you before, the Reds' fan base is not limited to the local Cincinnati media market. If you want to understand the strength of the Reds' market you need to add in the folks in Dayton, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Indianapolis, Charleston and other media markets. The Reds' fan base extends over Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. So don't be fooled by the local numbers. The Reds' fan base is in the upper half of the league. Each year the team fields a bargain-basement squad of losers the fan base dwindles -- especially in the outlying areas. If you think the Reds are a small market team you have been drinking the Lindner KoolAid.


The poor, destitute Reds just don't have a chance against the big, mean Yankees. We Reds fans in pathetic little Cincinnati are just lucky to have a team. :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

The attendance and media market size and all that is confusing you to the big picture: The Reds make a huge profit every year despite the attendance, ticket prices, market size etc. Can't you see that?
I'm not sure but it sounds like you're starting to accept that the Reds ARE a small market team. Unless I'm wrong, that's an interesting switch within only a few hours.

Homer Bailey
07-25-2009, 04:21 AM
I'm being told the Reds have all this money floating around compared to most franchises, and I'm trying to figure out where it's coming from considering these facts.

* It's not coming from attendance. Not even cracking top 20 in people coming through the turnstiles * one of the cheaper tickets on baseball = less gate revenue than many franchises

* It's not coming from television revenue. Bottom five in all of baseball.

* It's not coming from radio. Though Cincinnati ranks a little higher as a market in radio than household penetration, the WLW contract, last I saw, was only bigger than 7-8 teams in baseball.

* It's not coming from luxury payments as that goes to the bottom quartile in payroll.

* Apparel and licensing goes through Major League Baseball as well as National Media Broadcasting rights and is distributed through the annual franchise distribution equally.

I'm not saying the Reds don't turn a profit. What I'm saying is that the result is Forbes as having the Reds as No. 25 this year in revenue with $170 mil. Yet, the Reds opened the season with a payroll higher than 12 teams. So clearly they're spending more disproportionately against revenue than is being alleged.

In 2008, the Reds were No. 23 in revenue & No. 18 in opening day payroll.

In 2007, No. 23 again in revenue and No. 19 in opening day payroll.

So the Reds are spending proportionately better than other teams around baseball recently. That's what my point is.


Outstanding job in cherry picking the numbers. Really.

In response to your post:

-The amount brought in by ticket sales to a small market team is miniscule compared to revenue sharing, TV deals, advertisements, etc. Reds have never made a margin on ticket sales and never will. Just the nature of the game. We are targeting one of the smallest markets in the MLB, and one of the most fair weather.

-It is a small market TV basis, but it is how this team is making it's money. I'm not sure of the exact breakdown, but the Reds are 22nd in total rev (for "08, not bottom 5). Seriously doubt they are one of the bottom 5 in baseball for TV viewership based on this.

Fact is the Reds were 14th out of 30 in total profit earned for '08. The Reds made $18M according to Forbes. More than the Phillies. More than the Dodgers. Make all the excuses you want. The Reds BENEFIT GREATLY from the revenue sharing agreement, yet do nothing with it to improve the team.

Don't say the Reds were blah blah blah in revenue and blah blah blah in payroll. It is not comparing apples and oranges. It does not mean they are commited to winning just because they possibly spend more than their revenue in payroll. There are a lot more factors that go into running a business than just payroll. It does not mean winning is their absolute goal. They are trying to turn a profit and succeeding.

The small town excuses are nothing but excuses. Fact is ownership is cheap and not willing to commit to a winner, so we will forever be a bottom feeder.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 05:09 AM
Outstanding job in cherry picking the numbers. Really.

In response to your post:

-The amount brought in by ticket sales to a small market team is miniscule compared to revenue sharing, TV deals, advertisements, etc. Reds have never made a margin on ticket sales and never will. Just the nature of the game. We are targeting one of the smallest markets in the MLB, and one of the most fair weather.

-It is a small market TV basis, but it is how this team is making it's money. I'm not sure of the exact breakdown, but the Reds are 22nd in total rev (for "08, not bottom 5). Seriously doubt they are one of the bottom 5 in baseball for TV viewership based on this.

Fact is the Reds were 14th out of 30 in total profit earned for '08. The Reds made $18M according to Forbes. More than the Phillies. More than the Dodgers. Make all the excuses you want. The Reds BENEFIT GREATLY from the revenue sharing agreement, yet do nothing with it to improve the team.

Don't say the Reds were blah blah blah in revenue and blah blah blah in payroll. It is not comparing apples and oranges. It does not mean they are commited to winning just because they possibly spend more than their revenue in payroll. There are a lot more factors that go into running a business than just payroll. It does not mean winning is their absolute goal. They are trying to turn a profit and succeeding.

The small town excuses are nothing but excuses. Fact is ownership is cheap and not willing to commit to a winner, so we will forever be a bottom feeder.

When I said bottom five in all of baseball, I said that about revenue from local media. I stated further down in my post that they were 23 in total revenue that season. Only four teams in 2008 had income lesser than the Cincinnati reds from their television contracts.

The whole 14th in "profit" everyone is talking about is based on Forbes numbers, which is not even profit, as its footnote clearly states it does not count operating expenses or other debt loads beyond stadium debt. People keep throwing around this erroneous term to describe the numbers seen on Forbes. Actual profit is not even declared by Forbes. So it's not possible to know what the actual "profit" really is.

The Reds dont always benefit from revenue sharing, though. They are on the fringe, but only sometimes qualify. At least as far as the luxury tax is concerned. Revenue sharing is only divided among the bottom quartile of teams in those revenue numbers. The Reds have to be at No. 24 in revenue to qualify. The only other form of revenue sharing in baseball comes from the MLB General Fund (based on annual shares of licensing, National Broadcasting Rights Fees and other merchandising profits). This obviously is the percentage of each team's local media revenue as well as merchandising and national media put in a pot and distributed back out.

Their payroll distribution as a percentage of revenue is consistent with the average franchise. This is very relevant. This is a fact. So the idea that the Reds are committing less to their team is just a myth. And you know what? That does not account for what's being spent in foreign scouting, domestic scouting, front office salaries, baseball operations, etc. Last year has shown the Reds have actually committed a larger portion of their budget for foreign FA signings and that seems to be continuing this year and beyond.

To Atomic's point about "Just because the Reds have multiple stockholders doesn't mean anything. The profit is the same no matter how many people get to divvy it up. The team is highly profitable. You can't deny it."

I can deny it and I have denied it. Profitable, yes. Highly? Not so. The numbers that keep getting spewed is not even profit. It's an income before taxes and before other debt load and operating expenses. If these numbers are close to being accurate, then you remove these things and suddenly you have a number that is not highly profitable when you consider the investment these men have into this franchise. To say that multiple owners doesn't mean anything is preposterous. Ten mil distributed to one owner is ten mil. Ten mil divided by 15 stockholders is significantly different. That means one man cannot improve major payroll acquisitions. One player acquisition drastically adjusts the dividend for 15 investors' interests. This is very relevant because it's a factor in the business world.

In fact, Castellini's group purchased the Reds for $270 mil, a 70 percent share of the club. Two individuals own the shares of the remaining 30 percent, but within those two shares, there are some half dozen investors. Of the Castellini portion, there are three principal owners but an additional 10 investors with a 4 percent portion (they do not, however, have voting interests). Still, that's at least five major principal owners and another 15 people with dividends. That's at least 20 people counting on a check under certain parameters. Once peoples' investments have been realized in full (i.e. total income exceeds that of the original investment), I imagine there will be less pressure to meet the burden of expectations and a bigger freedom to increase spending. But the Reds have actually done that each of the last few seasons - small increases in payroll, scouting, operations, etc.

I've said I think the Reds are certainly profiting. I stand behind that 100 percent. I think the profit is in the amount of eight figures plus. That means at least $10 mil profit each season. But my point is for the size of the market, the number of investors involved in ownership and the amount of revenue distribution, I would expect a club to operate nothing short of that level. I think that's a fair threshold to budget a club with. If it insults fans that 20 owners would split an 8 percent profit margin of operating revenue (which is based on approx. $15 mil divided by last year's $170 mil revenue), then perhaps your expectations are not aligned with the reality of the business world.

redsfandan
07-25-2009, 05:10 AM
Fact is the Reds were 14th out of 30 in total profit earned for '08. The Reds made $18M according to Forbes. More than the Phillies. More than the Dodgers. Make all the excuses you want. The Reds BENEFIT GREATLY from the revenue sharing agreement, yet do nothing with it to improve the team.
Debatable. I think you're overstating things a little.

I like this part the best though:


Don't say the Reds were blah blah blah in revenue and blah blah blah in payroll. It is not comparing apples and oranges. It does not mean they are commited to winning just because they possibly spend more than their revenue in payroll. There are a lot more factors that go into running a business than just payroll. It does not mean winning is their absolute goal. They are trying to turn a profit and succeeding.
Makes sense to me.

edabbs44
07-25-2009, 07:27 AM
Not sure if this was posted in this Holliday thread about the Cincy media market, but Rosenthal had this tidbit:


Marlins had interest in Holliday, but ...
The Marlins actually showed interest in Holliday at one point; they wanted the A's to pick up the majority of Holliday's remaining salary in exchange for better prospects.

The Reds inquired, but the discussions failed to progress. A bid by the Tigers ended when the A's asked for Class A left-hander Casey Crosby and Class AAA second baseman Scott Sizemore.


I take it that Oakland wanted a lot.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9848430/Red-Sox-may-renew-interest-in-A%27s-Cabrera

jojo
07-25-2009, 09:32 AM
I assume if the Cards are giving up Brett Wallace for him, they're planning on signing him to an extension. Think Scott Rolen circa 2002.

I think this trade might be a good definition for going "all in".

MattyHo4Life
07-25-2009, 09:33 AM
I have to admit that I was very skeptical when I heard the rumors bout trading for Wallace for Holliday. Wallace is/was our best prospect. Wallace can hit, there is no question about it. The problem is that he isnt goo defensively. He was drafted as a 3B, but nobody expects him to be abe to pay 3B at the Major League level. He is looking more and more like a DH .The Cardinals have no use for a 1B or a DH. Wallace reminds me a lot of Daric Barton. Barton was viewed as a can't miss hitting prospect, but didn't project as a Major League catcher which is the position that he was dafted.

Trading for Holliday will strengthen our weak offense, and make pitchers pause a little before walking Pujols. Holliday definitly helps us this year, and there is the chance that he can be resigned next year, or we would get acouple of high draft picks in return for him. As far as his being a Bora client, he could still sign with the Cards like Kyle Lohse did. Lohse had a great year last, but signed with the Cardinals before filing for free agency. In hindsight, he probably got a much better deal with the Cardinals than he would have gotten otherwise due to the economic downturn. Lohse said that hereally liked it in St. Louis, and he told Boras that he wanted to stay. Hopefully, Holliday will do the same thing.

jojo
07-25-2009, 09:38 AM
When I said bottom five in all of baseball, I said that about revenue from local media. I stated further down in my post that they were 23 in total revenue that season. Only four teams in 2008 had income lesser than the Cincinnati reds from their television contracts.

The whole 14th in "profit" everyone is talking about is based on Forbes numbers, which is not even profit, as its footnote clearly states it does not count operating expenses or other debt loads beyond stadium debt. People keep throwing around this erroneous term to describe the numbers seen on Forbes. Actual profit is not even declared by Forbes. So it's not possible to know what the actual "profit" really is.

The Reds dont always benefit from revenue sharing, though. They are on the fringe, but only sometimes qualify. At least as far as the luxury tax is concerned. Revenue sharing is only divided among the bottom quartile of teams in those revenue numbers. The Reds have to be at No. 24 in revenue to qualify. The only other form of revenue sharing in baseball comes from the MLB General Fund (based on annual shares of licensing, National Broadcasting Rights Fees and other merchandising profits). This obviously is the percentage of each team's local media revenue as well as merchandising and national media put in a pot and distributed back out.

Their payroll distribution as a percentage of revenue is consistent with the average franchise. This is very relevant. This is a fact. So the idea that the Reds are committing less to their team is just a myth. And you know what? That does not account for what's being spent in foreign scouting, domestic scouting, front office salaries, baseball operations, etc. Last year has shown the Reds have actually committed a larger portion of their budget for foreign FA signings and that seems to be continuing this year and beyond.

To Atomic's point about "Just because the Reds have multiple stockholders doesn't mean anything. The profit is the same no matter how many people get to divvy it up. The team is highly profitable. You can't deny it."

I can deny it and I have denied it. Profitable, yes. Highly? Not so. The numbers that keep getting spewed is not even profit. It's an income before taxes and before other debt load and operating expenses. If these numbers are close to being accurate, then you remove these things and suddenly you have a number that is not highly profitable when you consider the investment these men have into this franchise. To say that multiple owners doesn't mean anything is preposterous. Ten mil distributed to one owner is ten mil. Ten mil divided by 15 stockholders is significantly different. That means one man cannot improve major payroll acquisitions. One player acquisition drastically adjusts the dividend for 15 investors' interests. This is very relevant because it's a factor in the business world.

In fact, Castellini's group purchased the Reds for $270 mil, a 70 percent share of the club. Two individuals own the shares of the remaining 30 percent, but within those two shares, there are some half dozen investors. Of the Castellini portion, there are three principal owners but an additional 10 investors with a 4 percent portion (they do not, however, have voting interests). Still, that's at least five major principal owners and another 15 people with dividends. That's at least 20 people counting on a check under certain parameters. Once peoples' investments have been realized in full (i.e. total income exceeds that of the original investment), I imagine there will be less pressure to meet the burden of expectations and a bigger freedom to increase spending. But the Reds have actually done that each of the last few seasons - small increases in payroll, scouting, operations, etc.

I've said I think the Reds are certainly profiting. I stand behind that 100 percent. I think the profit is in the amount of eight figures plus. That means at least $10 mil profit each season. But my point is for the size of the market, the number of investors involved in ownership and the amount of revenue distribution, I would expect a club to operate nothing short of that level. I think that's a fair threshold to budget a club with. If it insults fans that 20 owners would split an 8 percent profit margin of operating revenue (which is based on approx. $15 mil divided by last year's $170 mil revenue), then perhaps your expectations are not aligned with the reality of the business world.

You're absolutely right that it's unlikely the Reds have the ability to raise payroll dramatically and still remain profitable. It isn't greed that is holding the Reds back.

traderumor
07-25-2009, 09:42 AM
You're absolutely right that it's unlikely the Reds have the ability to raise payroll dramatically and still remain profitable. It isn't greed that is holding the Reds back.They can increase revenue, but it would take some up front investment to do so, both in bumping up salary and in market gaining activities prior to a bump in revenue. That is the part ownership has been unwilling to do since Marge.

And yes, I know Marge did whatever it took in the short term at the expense of the long-term, but she does serve as an example of an owner who kicked in money to keep the product on the field in playoff contention.

Jpup
07-25-2009, 09:56 AM
My problem with the Reds is that they spend their money on bad players.

blumj
07-25-2009, 09:59 AM
I have to admit that I was very skeptical when I heard the rumors bout trading for Wallace for Holliday. Wallace is/was our best prospect. Wallace can hit, there is no question about it. The problem is that he isnt goo defensively. He was drafted as a 3B, but nobody expects him to be abe to pay 3B at the Major League level. He is looking more and more like a DH .The Cardinals have no use for a 1B or a DH. Wallace reminds me a lot of Daric Barton. Barton was viewed as a can't miss hitting prospect, but didn't project as a Major League catcher which is the position that he was dafted.

Trading for Holliday will strengthen our weak offense, and make pitchers pause a little before walking Pujols. Holliday definitly helps us this year, and there is the chance that he can be resigned next year, or we would get acouple of high draft picks in return for him. As far as his being a Bora client, he could still sign with the Cards like Kyle Lohse did. Lohse had a great year last, but signed with the Cardinals before filing for free agency. In hindsight, he probably got a much better deal with the Cardinals than he would have gotten otherwise due to the economic downturn. Lohse said that hereally liked it in St. Louis, and he told Boras that he wanted to stay. Hopefully, Holliday will do the same thing.
He's going to be the top free agent on the market. Just don't get your hopes up too high.

MattyHo4Life
07-25-2009, 10:04 AM
He's going to be the top free agent on the market. Just don't get your hopes up too high.

He might, but there is no guarantee that he will. The Cards owners will probably make him a good offer, because they want to send a message to Pujols that they are committed to winning

Far East
07-25-2009, 10:14 AM
Of the Cards' first four in the lineup, 3 of them have been obtained within the last several weeks:

Julio Lugo 2B
Mark DeRosa 3B
Albert Pujols 1B
Matt Holliday LF

MattyHo4Life
07-25-2009, 10:21 AM
Of the Cards' first four in the lineup, 3 of them have been obtained within the last several weeks:

Julio Lugo 2B
Mark DeRosa 3B
Albert Pujols 1B
Matt Holliday LF

That is true, but Lugo isn't the starting second baseman. Schumaker sat last night because a lefty was pitching, and Lugo has had good success against Philly. Lugo could help, but the best part of that trade was getting rid of Duncan.

Jpup
07-25-2009, 10:23 AM
Of the Cards' first four in the lineup, 3 of them have been obtained within the last several weeks:

Julio Lugo 2B
Mark DeRosa 3B
Albert Pujols 1B
Matt Holliday LF

It's also not costing the Cardinals much to promise themselves a playoff spot. Could have the Reds done the same with Lugo, Derosa, and Holliday? It sure would have helped, but the Reds would have to had more than that IMO. If Votto was Pujols, we might be on to something or if the Reds had Ludwick, Ankiel, and Rasmus. I think the pitching is comparable, but the Cardinals already had a pretty decent lineup.

MattyHo4Life
07-25-2009, 10:41 AM
we might be on to something or if the Reds had Ludwick, Ankiel, and Rasmus.

You want Ankiel?

puca
07-25-2009, 10:43 AM
I think there is a decent chance Holliday never hits the free agent market even with Boras ais his agent. Boras works for Holliday. While surely Boras will be trying to convince Holliday to test the free agent market, bottom line is that if Holliday really wants to stay in St. Louis and the Cardinals want to keep him then Boras won't stand in the way. The Cardinals have bought themselves a few month window to win Holliday over while at the same time improving their post-season chances. Seems to me like the Cardinals have been very good at keeping the players they want to keep.

puca
07-25-2009, 10:44 AM
You want Ankiel?

Well when compared to the player the Reds have roaming CF...

MattyHo4Life
07-25-2009, 11:26 AM
I think there is a decent chance Holliday never hits the free agent market even with Boras ais his agent. Boras works for Holliday. While surely Boras will be trying to convince Holliday to test the free agent market, bottom line is that if Holliday really wants to stay in St. Louis and the Cardinals want to keep him then Boras won't stand in the way. The Cardinals have bought themselves a few month window to win Holliday over while at the same time improving their post-season chances. Seems to me like the Cardinals have been very good at keeping the players they want to keep.

A couple of things that might help:

1) Holliday said that the reason he didn't want to sign an extnsion with the Rockies is that he wanted to be on a team that would be in contention each year.

2) During the pre-game interview he said that he worked out with Skip Schumaker during the offseson, and that Skip was telling him how much he likes playing in St. Louis.

St. Louis can't outbid a team like the Yankees, so they hae to win him over to have a chance of keepig him.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-25-2009, 11:43 AM
Just to rub salt in the wound....Holliday just went 4 for 5 in his debut. 8-1 win over the Phils. *sigh*

In a game that wasn't anywhere near Coors Field :rolleyes:

It would take Laynce Nix 10 games to equal that production

westofyou
07-25-2009, 12:07 PM
Trying to say that Reds are a really a large market team cracks me up, they ceded their regional area north and northwest over the past 30 years due to small minded behavior from Marge mostly.

But hey I hear she spent money on the payroll.... for awhile that is.

Nice trade off eh?

corkedbat
07-25-2009, 12:54 PM
Just to rub salt in the wound....Holliday just went 4 for 5 in his debut. 8-1 win over the Phils. *sigh*

No brig deal. WillyT has already had four hits in a game for a lot less money. :evil:

TheNext44
07-25-2009, 01:09 PM
Just to make one point about the whole "profit" debate.

1) Just summing up briefly the point that Brutus was making. "Profit" does not mean money you can put into your pocket. It simply is the difference between your revenue and your operating expenses. On a franchise worth over $300M, a $14M "profit" disappears quickly after taxes, debt payoff, deferred money payouts, cost increases for the next year, the X factor rule (putting aside a certain amount of cash for unexpected events and economic downturns) and investors getting paid.

To put it into perspective, the Yankees take in close to $400M every year in local media revenue alone. That means that before they sell a single ticket, they have a profit of well over $100M, closer to $200M. Other big market teams have profit margins close to that. The Reds profit margins of around $14M a year are dwarfed by the big market teams profit margins, and is why it is tough for them to compete.

I do want to add, on a separate note, that I am firmly in the camp that the Reds would be better off if they raised payroll, and did it wisely. The best way to raise profits is to win. I think Cast understand that, he just hasn't figured out the details of how to accomplish it yet.

RedsManRick
07-25-2009, 01:19 PM
My problem with the Reds is that they spend their money on bad players.

Agreed. Payroll is not the primary limiting factor in our success; usage of that payroll is.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2009, 01:33 PM
Agreed. Payroll is not the primary limiting factor in our success; usage of that payroll is.

I'd argue Arroyo's extension has been almost as titanically stupid as the signing of Eric Milton. You'll disagree, I'm sure, but in context (Reds are actually more cash-strapped now, and have more binding contracts), it has been awfully ill-starred.

You can't pay a #4/5 pitcher almost 20% of your total payroll.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 02:30 PM
Just to make one point about the whole "profit" debate.

1) Just summing up briefly the point that Brutus was making. "Profit" does not mean money you can put into your pocket. It simply is the difference between your revenue and your operating expenses. On a franchise worth over $300M, a $14M "profit" disappears quickly after taxes, debt payoff, deferred money payouts, cost increases for the next year, the X factor rule (putting aside a certain amount of cash for unexpected events and economic downturns) and investors getting paid.

To put it into perspective, the Yankees take in close to $400M every year in local media revenue alone. That means that before they sell a single ticket, they have a profit of well over $100M, closer to $200M. Other big market teams have profit margins close to that. The Reds profit margins of around $14M a year are dwarfed by the big market teams profit margins, and is why it is tough for them to compete.

I do want to add, on a separate note, that I am firmly in the camp that the Reds would be better off if they raised payroll, and did it wisely. The best way to raise profits is to win. I think Cast understand that, he just hasn't figured out the details of how to accomplish it yet.

I agree with this. There's no question that putting a winner out there, even one season of playoffs, can experience a financial windfall experienced with playoff revenue, the following season's attendance and it can make your franchise attractive to free agents for a few seasons. So obviously a wise investment that does not financially strap the organization could pay dividends.

My only points were that A) the kind of profit numbers as we're discussing are really not that much, B) that to the extent they do profit, it's a reasonable margin to expect a business with that revenue to earn and C) this is bigger than a Reds' ownership issue if the primary revenue for a team like Cincinnati comes from disproportionate revenue sharing.

The Reds, on the bright side, have shown a slight payroll increase each of the past few seasons and have been showing signs of pumping money into scouting & development. These are good signs for the organization. Of course, some carefully chosen free agent signings at the right price could definitely help a lot.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 03:10 PM
You're absolutely right that it's unlikely the Reds have the ability to raise payroll dramatically and still remain profitable. It isn't greed that is holding the Reds back.

LOL. You can ignore the huge profit numbers if you want. The numbers have been published, but you can pretend they don't exist if it makes you feel better.

The Forbes numbers are respected in the financial world and they prove the Reds have plenty of money to spend. They choose not to spend it. If you don't have a problem with that then fine, but it is dishonest to say the money does not exist.

The PWC numbers suggest the profits are even higher.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 03:14 PM
Hmmm....


I'm not sure but it sounds like you're starting to accept that the Reds ARE a small market team. Unless I'm wrong, that's an interesting switch within only a few hours.

No the Reds are not a small market team. That much is certain. They are not a huge market team either. Middle of the road. They certainly have the resources to improve the team if they choose to do so. I have presented the evidence. People can choose to believe the published facts or believe whatever else they want to believe. There are several Castellini apologists ranting on this thread.

reds44
07-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Don't all baseball owners want to make profit? Does anybody want to lose money?

Falls City Beer
07-25-2009, 03:17 PM
Don't all baseball owners want to make profit? Does anybody want to lose money?

I don't think the argument is profit vs. no profit.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 03:18 PM
Don't all baseball owners want to make profit? Does anybody want to lose money?

Who said they don't want to make money? Not me.

The point I have made is the Reds have the resources to improve the team if they want to win.

So far they have chosen to maximize profit instead of winning. Nobody has proven that wrong yet.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 03:21 PM
I don't think the argument is profit vs. no profit.

Correct.

Seems like these guys want to exaggerate and distort a person's opinion by taking it to the ludicrous extreme.

The numbers show the Reds have the money to improve the team if they want to win. They make a profit every year that could be reinvested in the team and franchise. It is a simple fact.

A couple of guys have posted here that the Reds cannot afford to increase the payroll. I have proven they can afford to raise the payroll. That is the point I have been stressing. If the Reds really want to improve the team they have the money to do it.

Is winning important enough to the owners that they are willing to spend more money to improve the team? Apparently not.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 06:38 PM
No the Reds are not a small market team. That much is certain. They are not a huge market team either. Middle of the road. They certainly have the resources to improve the team if they choose to do so. I have presented the evidence. People can choose to believe the published facts or believe whatever else they want to believe. There are several Castellini apologists ranting on this thread.

The Reds are the clinical definition of a small market team. How do you think a market is defined? By it's size. Considering the Reds are in the smallest MLB radio and television markets, how could they be defined in any other way? That's the clinical definition of a small market! Since they reside in the smallest market in all of baseball, then no one is smaller by the very definition of where the term is originated. You are correct - they are not a small market team - they're the smallest market team!

And in addition to their size, they bring in, even with benefit of added revenue sharing, revenue that surpasses annually no more than 6-8 teams in all of baseball. Again, that's small market.

This is not excuse-making or some ill-faded attempts to defend the Reds' ownership. This is simply absolute fact. So you don't like how they utilize their income, fine. You think they're capable of taking on more with their resources, though I clearly disagree with the business practicality of doing that, that's fair enough. But the Reds by every test or measure, are a small market club. In all of professional sports, not too many teams reside in a smaller one.

Last point, as this debate is starting to become circular.

Let's use your published number of $17 mil profit (which again, was not actually defined as profit by Forbes). But let's use that figure. Even though other debts and operating expenses are not even removed from that figure (which is a pretty key statement), let's assume a few million dollars in tax burden. Let's say 15% for ease of discussion. That leaves us with $14.45 mil to distribute among 20 investors as designated. Your complaint is the lack of additional usage of resources.

My hunch is that if the Reds boosted the payroll by $7 mil, using almost half of these resources, you would still barely notice the efforts and would continue to criticize unless they took out full page adds propagandizing the payroll increases. Using this example of half, even $7 mil is not typically a lot of money in which to maneuver. And that's significant because it cuts down the so-called 'profit' margin for 20 individuals or so by half. Really puts into perspective that this is not as much money as it sounds at first. In this example, we're talking $7 mil profit for an investment that cost $270 mil. Hypothetically, at that pace, it would take 38 years to recoup their investment and all we did is cut the "profit" in half. That should put this in perspective a bit. An investment that takes 30 ish years to recoup is probably not a real good investment.

AtomicDumpling
07-25-2009, 09:47 PM
The Reds are the clinical definition of a small market team. How do you think a market is defined? By it's size. Considering the Reds are in the smallest MLB radio and television markets, how could they be defined in any other way? That's the clinical definition of a small market! Since they reside in the smallest market in all of baseball, then no one is smaller by the very definition of where the term is originated. You are correct - they are not a small market team - they're the smallest market team!

Totally false. Reread the thread. You are not determining market size correctly. You are intentionally leaving out huge swathes of the Reds market as was pointed out earlier. I am not going to explain it again.


Last point, as this debate is starting to become circular.

Let's use your published number of $17 mil profit (which again, was not actually defined as profit by Forbes). But let's use that figure. Even though other debts and operating expenses are not even removed from that figure (which is a pretty key statement),

Totally false again. The $17 million is cash profit with all team expenses deducted. You are using a false definition of "profit". Of course you have to pay taxes on your profits and salaries in the United States.


My hunch is that if the Reds boosted the payroll by $7 mil, using almost half of these resources, you would still barely notice the efforts and would continue to criticize unless they took out full page adds propagandizing the payroll increases. Using this example of half, even $7 mil is not typically a lot of money in which to maneuver. And that's significant because it cuts down the so-called 'profit' margin for 20 individuals or so by half. Really puts into perspective that this is not as much money as it sounds at first. In this example, we're talking $7 mil profit for an investment that cost $270 mil. Hypothetically, at that pace, it would take 38 years to recoup their investment and all we did is cut the "profit" in half. That should put this in perspective a bit. An investment that takes 30 ish years to recoup is probably not a real good investment.

Way off again. I believe Castellini's group only bought 51.5% of the team for about $135 million. The other 48.5% is owned by other people that recouped their investments many years ago. The Reds as a business entity have made an average profit of $37 million per year since 2005. I think anyone would notice that. You can recoup your investment very quickly when you use the real numbers instead of your make believe numbers. Your $7 million number is 1/5 of the real number. At current rates the Castellini ownership group will recoup their investment in only 7-8 years.

The Cincinnati Reds are a cash cow, gravy train, money fountain for the owners. It would be nice for the fans if the owners wanted to win as badly as they want to profit.

Brutus
07-25-2009, 10:17 PM
Totally false. Reread the thread. You are not determining market size correctly. You are intentionally leaving out huge swathes of the Reds market as was pointed out earlier. I am not going to explain it again.

Try telling that to the television and radio stations that draw up these figures. I am using the way these measurements are calculated. It does not matter how big the Reds 'fan base' stretches. The true test of the market, as far as valuation is concerned (you can ask Forbes, Major League Baseball, any media entity or advertiser), is the size of the home market only. Market size is determined (I'm going to say this again for emphasis) by ONLY the home base. That's how advertising is figured. This is also the factor used in franchise valuation. This is not debatable. Regardless of what somebody wants to try and define it as to the contrary, this is the clinical way that "market size" is defined.




Totally false again. The $17 million is cash profit with all team expenses deducted. You are using a false definition of "profit". Of course you have to pay taxes on your profits and salaries in the United States.

Since you have to pay back debt as well as taxes, those monies have to be set aside and can't be applied toward payroll. So my issue is that I'm not comfortable saying "the Reds have an additional $17 mil to spend on payroll" which is what you seem to be implying. In reality, they have less than that to stay in the Black. In terms of operations, it's profit but it's not the true profit. And since net profit is what ownership is actually going to be taking in, that's the number I'm interested in being reinvested in acquiring additional players.




Way off again. I believe Castellini's group only bought 51.5% of the team for about $135 million. The other 48.5% is owned by other people that recouped their investments many years ago. The Reds as a business entity have made an average profit of $37 million per year since 2005. I think anyone would notice that. You can recoup your investment very quickly when you use the real numbers instead of your make believe numbers. Your $7 million number is 1/5 of the real number. At current rates the Castellini ownership group will recoup their investment in only 7-8 years.

The Cincinnati Reds are a cash cow, gravy train, money fountain for the owners. It would be nice for the fans if the owners wanted to win as badly as they want to profit.

That belief is mistaken. It was 70% from Cincinnati Baseball LLC., with two primary shareholders clinging to the remaining 30%. Each of those two had several minority investors without controlling interest. Castelini and the Williams brothers were the controlling figures on the $270 mil purchased, with a total of 10 more investors, each having a 4% stake in the franchise and fronting $6.5 mil investment.


Team: Cincinnati Reds

Principal Owner: Robert Castellini
Year Established: 1869
Team Website

Most Recent Purchase Price ($/Mil): $270 for 70% (2006)
Current Value ($/Mil): $274
Percent Change From Last Year: +8%

Sports Faculty Reports from University of Marquette Law (http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=2630)

I could not find the original enquirer link, though I know it exists, but there you go. There's your info.

I'm a little confused. You're trumping $17 mil profit, but now $37 mil average is the real number? I would like to see where you are pulling that number from. I'm not sure how anything I've said is make believe. It's simply common sense that if supposedly $17 mil is the operating income, actual take-home pay going to shareholders will be less than that - which is a determination as to whether an investment is even worthwhile. No one is disputing the Reds are profiting, so that's not the issue. But even your $17 mil figure is the accurate figure, that's less than a 10% profit margin. In many businesses, that's a pretty standard level of operations.

jojo
07-26-2009, 11:05 PM
LOL. You can ignore the huge profit numbers if you want. The numbers have been published, but you can pretend they don't exist if it makes you feel better.

The Forbes numbers are respected in the financial world and they prove the Reds have plenty of money to spend. They choose not to spend it. If you don't have a problem with that then fine, but it is dishonest to say the money does not exist.

The PWC numbers suggest the profits are even higher.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the profit numbers....Several people have tried to directly address this point-several times. As an example, here's a great summary:


Just to make one point about the whole "profit" debate.

1) Just summing up briefly the point that Brutus was making. "Profit" does not mean money you can put into your pocket. It simply is the difference between your revenue and your operating expenses. On a franchise worth over $300M, a $14M "profit" disappears quickly after taxes, debt payoff, deferred money payouts, cost increases for the next year, the X factor rule (putting aside a certain amount of cash for unexpected events and economic downturns) and investors getting paid.

If I recall correctly, Forbes estimates the Reds profit at roughly $16M this year-before the Reds have to "cut it up" for the "fineprint".

There is no way that I can see for Reds to bump payroll dramatically (let alone to a level somewhere around $100M as was originally suggested in this discussion) based upon the Forbes profit estimate that is being referenced.

Given those proposing the Reds can dramatically bump payroll have also generally argued that leveraging "equity" gained in a given year isn't necasary to fund a big payroll bump, one's left puzzled by the math.

The Forbes estimate suggests to me that the Reds might be able to raise payroll roughly another $10M this season without danger of losing money.

Given its the significance/meaning of facts that is at the heart of this discussion, this discussion is never going to move forward if its framed by these two choices:

1) either agree that the Reds aren't winning because they try to make huge profits in lieu of trying to win or

2) be obtuse (ignore facts), dishonest, and delusional (pretend the facts are different)

There is alot of room for truly great discussion concerning this issue IMHO.....

AtomicDumpling
07-27-2009, 12:34 AM
I don't think anyone is ignoring the profit numbers....Several people have tried to directly address this point-several times. As an example, here's a great summary:



If I recall correctly, Forbes estimates the Reds profit at roughly $16M this year-before the Reds have to "cut it up" for the "fineprint".

There is no way that I can see for Reds to bump payroll dramatically (let alone to a level somewhere around $100M as was originally suggested in this discussion) based upon the Forbes profit estimate that is being referenced.

Given those proposing the Reds can dramatically bump payroll have also generally argued that leveraging "equity" gained in a given year isn't necasary to fund a big payroll bump, one's left puzzled by the math.

The Forbes estimate suggests to me that the Reds might be able to raise payroll roughly another $10M this season without danger of losing money.

Given its the significance/meaning of facts that is at the heart of this discussion, this discussion is never going to move forward if its framed by these two choices:

1) either agree that the Reds aren't winning because they try to make huge profits in lieu of trying to win or

2) be obtuse (ignore facts), dishonest, and delusional (pretend the facts are different)

There is alot of room for truly great discussion concerning this issue IMHO.....

Risk of losing money? They have made almost a quarter billion dollars this decade!

If you have a cash profit of $17 million dollars that means you can raise the payroll $17 million dollars without leveraging equity and without losing money. That also doesn't factor in the $100 million in cash profit the Reds have already made in just the last five years!

In addition to the $20 million average annual profit the Reds have also gained an average of $17 million in equity per season. If they were creative and really wanted to win they could leverage that money and improve the team even further.

So far the apologists have failed to adequately debunk either notion. A few have used incorrect methods to vastly underestimate market size and utilize a poor understanding of finance to make excuses for the perennial losing as being inevitable. I don't buy it.

There is no shortage of profit for the ownership. They have made hundreds of millions in profit this decade alone. Despite having to pay taxes and share amongst the stakeholders the owners have made huge profits while the team has been dismal on the field. Despite market size and expenses the team still makes tens of millions of dollars every year. That money could be reinvested in the franchise, but instead the owners unwisely choose to pay taxes on the profit and pocket way too much of the riches for the health of the franchise. (If they re-invested the cash profit they could save millions in tax while increasing the tax-free [or delayed-tax] equity.) They choose to maximize yearly profits instead of growing the business. Profit is far more important than winning.

The Reds are losing for a variety of reasons besides money alone. They do just about everything poorly from top to bottom. But it is hard to argue that signing a good free agent or two wouldn't improve the team at least a little bit. The Reds definitely have the money to bring in some good players. The numbers prove that to any reasonable person.

The Reds would be a better team right now if they had spent some money on available players like Bobby Abreu or Adam Dunn at bargain basement prices. They purportedly scuttled the Jermaine Dye trade because they didn't want to pay him a fair salary. None of those players would have broken the bank by any stretch of the imagination. The Reds would still be making a large profit even if they had brought one or more of those players on board. But they didn't do it, so now they are making a bigger profit while the team and the fans suffer.

When the facts show a team has made hundreds of millions of dollars in a few short years it is ridiculous to claim the team can't increase the payroll without risking bankruptcy.

TheNext44
07-27-2009, 03:05 AM
Just one story to try to exemplify the point I was trying to make about the term "profit."

I make my living as a screenwriter (and to answer the question I always get asked when I tell people that... no, I have not written anything you have seen, at least for your sake, I hope not.)

I make most of my money script doctoring, which means I work on someone else's script and try to make it better. My name is never attached but I get paid more for it than if I got a credit. It's a nice gig.
Most of the scripts I work on are low budget, steaming piles of crap, but I once got a chance to work on a big studio film. I am contractually not allowed to mention the name, but I can tell you it was a big dumb action movie starring Nicholas Cage. I know really doesn't narrow it down much.
I knew this was my one shot at getting a real payday, so I negotiated half my fee up front, and the other half as 1.5% of the profits of the movie. If it made $10M in profits, as was expected, I would make an extra $150K. That's usually at least two years work for me.
The movie, despite horrible reviews, did well at the box office. It was made for $64M including all operating expenses, including PR, distribution, etc. It made $72.5M overall including overseas and dvd.
That meant that I should have gotten $127K. Yipeeee!!!!!
However, because I negotiated a share of the "profits," that is not exactly what I received. Close to two years after the movie was released, I finally received a check for $387.56.
I had my accountant look over their books, and he said that everything was on the up and up. Even though the movie took in $8.5M in revenue over all it's expenses, the studio was able to show that it actually made a "profit" of just over $25K.

And that is how I learned the hard way that a company's "profit" is not simply the difference between it's operating expenses and it's revenue.

backbencher
07-27-2009, 03:26 AM
AtomicDumpling,

Please allow me to ask you a few questions:

1. What to you mean by "profit," "cash profit" and "make"? Do you mean actual take-home amounts or something else?

2. Why do you refer to time periods before the Castellini group took over? How is Castellini supposed to spend money that owners made before his time?

3. Do you agree that it is reasonable for investors in a MLB team to make some return on their investment? If so, what amount is reasonable?

4. Forbes has estimated that the Reds are carrying $41 million in operating and stadium debt. The Cincinnati press reported that the Castellini group used $100 million in financing to obtain the team. That's $141 million in debt. What would you calculate as the annual interest cost of servicing that debt?

5. You have been clear that you believe that the Reds are not a small market team. How do you define "small market"? What teams do you consider small market?

6. You have identified Indianapolis, Columbus, Charleston, Louisville and "Tennessee" as part of the Reds' market. What MLB teams draw a significant portion of their (a) season ticket base, (b) luxury ticket base, (c) walk-up attendance or (d) advertisers come from more than 100 miles away from the stadium?

7. The Reds are #19 in payroll. What should they rank?

8. Are you familiar with MLB's debt-ratio rule?

9. What type of cashflow covenants do you suppose the Reds' lenders impose on them?

AtomicDumpling
07-27-2009, 05:13 AM
AtomicDumpling,

Please allow me to ask you a few questions:

1. What to you mean by "profit," "cash profit" and "make"? Do you mean actual take-home amounts or something else?

2. Why do you refer to time periods before the Castellini group took over? How is Castellini supposed to spend money that owners made before his time?

3. Do you agree that it is reasonable for investors in a MLB team to make some return on their investment? If so, what amount is reasonable?

4. Forbes has estimated that the Reds are carrying $41 million in operating and stadium debt. The Cincinnati press reported that the Castellini group used $100 million in financing to obtain the team. That's $141 million in debt. What would you calculate as the annual interest cost of servicing that debt?

5. You have been clear that you believe that the Reds are not a small market team. How do you define "small market"? What teams do you consider small market?

6. You have identified Indianapolis, Columbus, Charleston, Louisville and "Tennessee" as part of the Reds' market. What MLB teams draw a significant portion of their (a) season ticket base, (b) luxury ticket base, (c) walk-up attendance or (d) advertisers come from more than 100 miles away from the stadium?

7. The Reds are #19 in payroll. What should they rank?

8. Are you familiar with MLB's debt-ratio rule?

9. What type of cashflow covenants do you suppose the Reds' lenders impose on them?

First of all, why should I reply to you after your nasty, mocking posts earlier in the thread? If you really wanted to have a friendly, civilized discussion you wouldn't have made those posts.

Secondly, are you asking these questions just so you can cherry pick facts, nitpick inconsequential details and mock my opinions on each of them as the apologists have done in this thread so far? Because I am not interested in a back-and-forth on this anymore. Most of these questions have already been answered more than once.

I will play along and answer the questions briefly. But please make an attempt to understand them rather than just attempt to find something to argue about.

1. Profit is simply an increase over time. In this case the profit is the difference between how much money the Reds took in and how much money went out, plus the increase in the value of the team. This is before taxes obviously because you only pay taxes on the profit. Cash profit is the revenues minus all expenses. Equity profit is the increase in value of the team. They don't pay tax on the equity until they sell their shares. That is why it is smarter to reinvest the cash profit into the business so you don't pay millions of dollars in tax every year. Taxes are irrelevant because they are paid only after profit is calculated. "Take Home" amounts are also irrelevant because that only matters to the stakeholders -- not the company.

Keep in mind that the Reds are an independent business entity. The Reds as a business make a huge cash profit every year and a huge equity profit every year. The franchise's profit is independent of the owners. So all this discussion of the various owners divvying up the profit is totally irrelevant to the conversation. For example, Ford (the auto company) makes a profit or loss every year based solely on its revenues and expenses. The owners/stockholders don't factor into the company's financial situation. We don't need to know anything about the owners or stockholders to determine the profit/loss of the company.

Since the Reds end up with more revenue than expenses that means they could have spent more money on players, research, marketing, stadium improvements or anything else. There is no doubt the Reds have made a large profit every year. You can quibble over the amounts but they are certainly large.

2. The Reds have been making huge profits before and after Castellini took over. Some of the pre-Castellini owners are still here. The pre-Castellini numbers were shown to demonstrate that the Reds have been highly profitable for many years and there is absolutely no risk of anybody losing money on their investment as some have claimed.

3. Of course it is reasonable to make some money. They can do whatever they want since they own the team. My point has been to show that the owners have been making huge profits while the team has been awful. Most people think the team is barely solvent and can't afford to increase payroll even if the owners wanted to. I have disproven that notion and shown people the true state of affairs in the hope that people will stop saying the Reds can't afford to increase the payroll. They can afford to raise the payroll -- they just don't want to!

The Reds have made a very reasonable amount of money this decade. I would say $200+ million is at least reasonable, wouldn't you? That leaves plenty of money to increase the payroll and still make a huge profit. Of course they have the right to maximize profit. But wouldn't it be nice if winning held a high priority too? The numbers show that winning is a deeply subsidiary goal compared to profiting.

4. The interest on the team debt is probably about $2 million per year, which barely puts a tiny dent in the huge profit numbers averaging $37 million per year (cash + equity) -- especially when you consider much of it is tax deductible. The money that Castellini may have borrowed is his personal debt and does not affect the team finances in any way. Even so, given the $120 million or so the franchise has made since he bought the team I would imagine he has paid the vast majority of that money back already unless he got a great rate and is no hurry to pay it back.

5. A small market team is one that cannot compete with the rest of the league due to financial constraints caused by an insufficient fanbase. The implication being that they don't have enough money to do what they need to do. That certainly does not apply to the Reds because they don't even spend a large chunk of their yearly revenues.

The long-term losing ways of the team have caused the fanbase to dwindle dramatically over recent decades from their high in the Big Red Machine era when the Reds had one of the largest fanbases and market sizes in the entire league. Every losing season causes the long-term health of the franchise to deteriorate, a prognosis that could be improved by re-investing some of the profit into improving the team.

6. The Reds have one of the widest fanbases in the league. It is spread over several states and includes many cities large and small. There are probably more people living in "Reds Country" than 75% of the other teams' areas. A lot of people live in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee and Virginia and many/most of them are Reds fans. Those people buy tickets, concessions, memorabilia and watch the games on TV and listen to the Radio. They see advertisements and buy their products. Go downtown on a game weekend and look at the license plates to see for yourself.

Why does the market size matter to this conversation? All you need to know is the Reds make a big profit every year despite their market size or any other factor. That profit could be re-invested in the team if winning were important.

7. They need to spend whatever it takes to win. It doesn't matter what the rank is. If they spend their money wisely they may be able to win while spending less. If they spend foolishly they will have to spend more. The rank does not matter -- the results matter. You need to spend enough to win.

What other teams choose to do is irrelevant to the Reds situation. The Reds can choose to concentrate on winning like some teams do, or they can choose to concentrate on making money like some teams do. So far they have chosen to maximize profit.

8. I am not familiar with the debt-ratio rule. I know that debt ratios vary from 0 to 95% in the league. Debt ratio doesn't really apply to the Reds since they make so much money. The only debt they have is what they want to have. If they wanted less debt they could easily pay it off by using some of the huge annual profits. Sometimes debt is a good thing if the interest rate is low. It gives you more capital to invest in growing the business. Borrowing is the key to success in nearly every industry.

9. I am sure the Reds have excellent loan terms with low interest rates on all the debt they choose to carry. There are few safer investments than the Reds, so a bank would leap at the chance to loan them some money.

OK. Those are my answers.

If you have any comments please be civil and respectful and non-confrontational. Let's agree to restrict the debate to whether or not the Reds can afford to improve the team rather than argue over tangential micro-topics that don't affect the larger issue.

From what I can tell, all of the minority owners are very rich people that do not rely on the Reds for their livelihood, although they certainly do receive from the Reds what most of us would consider a very nice livelihood. Plus the value of their initial investments has far exceeded what they likely expected when they bought in.

Hopefully it is now apparent to everyone on Redszone that the Reds are very strong financially. I just recently realized how much money the Reds are making and I am sure most people are unaware of it.

They have the means to dramatically increase the payroll, invest in Latin America, improve their scouting, improve their player development, and establish a sabermetric department to advise the front office. All it takes is a desire to win from the owner.

If the owner really has a desire to win there are plenty of things he can do to help it happen. So far he has not done those things. So far he has chosen to maximize profit with very little regard for winning. They will be content to lose games season after season as long as the fans continue to be content with the losing team.

Since we on Redszone now know that the Reds can afford to hire better players we should encourage them to do so. We need to be vocal and make our voices heard. We need to stop making excuses and stop accepting excuses. We need to demand a winning team.

backbencher
07-27-2009, 11:09 AM
AtomicDumpling, thank you for the response. The issue is that the only numbers that you have cited are the Forbes numbers, and as The Next44 and jojo and others have tried to explain, you use them differently than Forbes.

Let's look at a couple of different things.

First, the notion that MLB franchises have ever-increasing values is, according to Forbes, hokum. The three franchises geographically closest to the Reds - the Tigers, Indians and Pirates - all lost value in the latest Forbes rankings.

Cite:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=126

Even if the Reds could leverage their theoretical increased value - and, as explained below, they cannot - betting on neverending year-over-year increases in value is about the same as betting on neverending year-over-year increases in your home value. It works great, until it doesn't. Further, even if the team has a paper profit, that profit cannot be used to add to payroll or to pay off debt until it is realized - that is, until the team is sold. It has little place in the discussion of team operating opportunities.


Second, there is an absolute limit on the amount of debt that a MLB team can carry. That limit is set by the debt ratio rule at 10 times EBITDA for most teams, 15 times EBIDTA for teams that have new stadiums. (Note - the NY teams look like they carry more because they have specially-approved separate entities that carry their stadium debt.) The published reports suggest that the Reds have $41MM in operating plus stadium debt (source: Forbes) and $100MM in debt financing the acquisition (source: Cincinnati press cited upthread). If the debt numbers are accurate, and if the Reds still qualify for the new-stadium exception, the team has about $9MM that it can spend on operating expenses - total. That's without talking about "profit" or what the owners are "pocketing" or anything else.

Ah, you say. So the Reds may not have $17MM to spend, but it is at least $9MM. Well, maybe. Let's go back to that $141MM in debt. It's reasonably likely that the $100MM acquisition financing is priced at something like 30-day LIBOR plus additional points. In January of 2006, when Castellini bought, LIBOR was at 4.5%. (Cite:http://www.wsjprimerate.us/libor/libor_rates_history.htm .) If the loan was at LIBOR plus 300, that's 7.5% interest. The stadium debt probably has a lower interest rate, but I can't find it, and let's assume that the remaining operating debt is some type of revolver based on the more recent, and historically low, LIBOR rates. Balanced out, let's call in about 6.5% in an average carrying cost for the debt - about $9.1MM in interest payments a year. So it turns out, in the Reds' case, the MLB debt ratio may not even matter - the team has to reserve $9.1MM just for financing costs. That leaves $8MM from the Forbes number.

You made a point about the debt being born by the ownership group personally rather than by the franchise. That's almost certainly not the case. Acquisition debt is likely held by the acquired entity, which is able to pay the debt using pretax dollars. Also, it's clear that the acquisition debt is not included in the Forbes numbers. In 2007, Forbes showed the Reds with $40MM in debt. (Cite: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html)

OK, now time for depreciation and amortization. I don't know how teams account for their various facilities (stadium, spring training facility, team offices, Latin American academies, etc.). Let's assume that none of that is treated as capital expenses of the team. The team still will have some capital expenses that it will finance over time - cars, tractors, exercise equipment, what have you. The depreciation amount, as you have noted, may not equal the amount that the team spends on capital equipment in a year. It will, however, approximate the useful life of that equipment and the team's cost to replace it. Let's call it $1MM a year.

Now, instead of $17MM a year, we really have $7MM - and that is using pretty conservative estimates on the interest and capital expenses of the team.

$7MM - still pretty lush, right? Well, consider: Most of these numbers start with Forbes, which used 2008 operating revenues as their baseline. Is 2008 likely to live up to 2009? Hamilton County apparently is having difficulty meeting its stadium obligations, to the tune of $5MM combined for the Reds and Bengals stadiums. Cite: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090722/NEWS01/907230328/ . The broader economy also is down, which almost certainly wipes out things like advertising revenue, luxury seat spending and high-end concessions. (Though low-end seats and concessions may be up - some businesses, notably home video rentals and hard liquor distributors, are.) Let's split the difference on the county payments (attributing $2.5MM to the Reds) and ignore the down economy elsewhere. That's $4.5MM left.

Is that the end? No, not really. The team's payroll expense, for example, is taken as a snapshot as of opening day. When players on split contracts go up and down, they essentially replace each other, payroll-wise. When players on long-term deals or full major league contracts go down, however, their replacement's salary is in additon to the team's payroll; for example, if Mike Lincoln is replaced by Carlos Fisher the Reds remain obligated for Lincoln's full contract plus Fisher's new, major league rate. It's not a lot of money, but it is some - for a team as injured as the Reds, call it $1MM this year.

These numbers could be off in a lot of ways. Forbes could have just missed it. The Reds could have paid down a big chunk of their acquisition debt, reducing the carrying costs, or perhaps refinanced when interest rates went down after 2006. But we do have a couple of checks on my work. One is that the Reds are #19 in payroll, which, as Brutus the Pimp has shown, is well above the franchise's ranking in market size, attendance, media contract, total revenue or any other public measurement of team finances. In other words, if the Reds are scrimping, they are doing so far, far less than their peers. Far less.

We also have Jocketty's statements at the start of the season that the Reds were preserving a little bit of flexibility to allow for a mid-season acquisition, as it is easier to make a deadline deal if you can take on salary.

But the bottom like, if these numbers are close, is that the Reds have something like $3MM worth of wiggle room. If paid out to investors, that is a less than 2% return on their original investment.

As for market size, if your definition of "small market" is based solely on whether the franchise has enough cash to field a competitive team on occasion - well, there's not much to disagree with. With prudent spending, the Reds can and should be competitive more than they are. The traditional definition of "small market" is emprical, however, and while sure, the Reds draw from a broad geographic area, and sure, the team could do more to market itself outside of metro Cincinnati. Neither of those observations is unique to Cincinnati. Nor is it surprising to say that the team's economics depend primarily on the fans who are closest, as those are the fans that can go to the 2/3 of games that occur on weekdays, who can use the stadium to entertain clients, and who can support the local advertisers.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 11:49 AM
Backbencher....

While the subject matter has almost nothing to do with on-field activities, that might be one of the more informative and interesting posts I've read on RZ in a long time. Thank you for the time putting it together.

AtomicDumpling
07-27-2009, 02:27 PM
AtomicDumpling, thank you for the response. The issue is that the only numbers that you have cited are the Forbes numbers, and as The Next44 and jojo and others have tried to explain, you use them differently than Forbes.

Let's look at a couple of different things.

First, the notion that MLB franchises have ever-increasing values is, according to Forbes, hokum. The three franchises geographically closest to the Reds - the Tigers, Indians and Pirates - all lost value in the latest Forbes rankings.

Cite:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=126

Even if the Reds could leverage their theoretical increased value - and, as explained below, they cannot - betting on neverending year-over-year increases in value is about the same as betting on neverending year-over-year increases in your home value. It works great, until it doesn't. Further, even if the team has a paper profit, that profit cannot be used to add to payroll or to pay off debt until it is realized - that is, until the team is sold. It has little place in the discussion of team operating opportunities.


Second, there is an absolute limit on the amount of debt that a MLB team can carry. That limit is set by the debt ratio rule at 10 times EBITDA for most teams, 15 times EBIDTA for teams that have new stadiums. (Note - the NY teams look like they carry more because they have specially-approved separate entities that carry their stadium debt.) The published reports suggest that the Reds have $41MM in operating plus stadium debt (source: Forbes) and $100MM in debt financing the acquisition (source: Cincinnati press cited upthread). If the debt numbers are accurate, and if the Reds still qualify for the new-stadium exception, the team has about $9MM that it can spend on operating expenses - total. That's without talking about "profit" or what the owners are "pocketing" or anything else.

Ah, you say. So the Reds may not have $17MM to spend, but it is at least $9MM. Well, maybe. Let's go back to that $141MM in debt. It's reasonably likely that the $100MM acquisition financing is priced at something like 30-day LIBOR plus additional points. In January of 2006, when Castellini bought, LIBOR was at 4.5%. (Cite:http://www.wsjprimerate.us/libor/libor_rates_history.htm .) If the loan was at LIBOR plus 300, that's 7.5% interest. The stadium debt probably has a lower interest rate, but I can't find it, and let's assume that the remaining operating debt is some type of revolver based on the more recent, and historically low, LIBOR rates. Balanced out, let's call in about 6.5% in an average carrying cost for the debt - about $9.1MM in interest payments a year. So it turns out, in the Reds' case, the MLB debt ratio may not even matter - the team has to reserve $9.1MM just for financing costs. That leaves $8MM from the Forbes number.

You made a point about the debt being born by the ownership group personally rather than by the franchise. That's almost certainly not the case. Acquisition debt is likely held by the acquired entity, which is able to pay the debt using pretax dollars. Also, it's clear that the acquisition debt is not included in the Forbes numbers. In 2007, Forbes showed the Reds with $40MM in debt. (Cite: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html)

OK, now time for depreciation and amortization. I don't know how teams account for their various facilities (stadium, spring training facility, team offices, Latin American academies, etc.). Let's assume that none of that is treated as capital expenses of the team. The team still will have some capital expenses that it will finance over time - cars, tractors, exercise equipment, what have you. The depreciation amount, as you have noted, may not equal the amount that the team spends on capital equipment in a year. It will, however, approximate the useful life of that equipment and the team's cost to replace it. Let's call it $1MM a year.

Now, instead of $17MM a year, we really have $7MM - and that is using pretty conservative estimates on the interest and capital expenses of the team.

$7MM - still pretty lush, right? Well, consider: Most of these numbers start with Forbes, which used 2008 operating revenues as their baseline. Is 2008 likely to live up to 2009? Hamilton County apparently is having difficulty meeting its stadium obligations, to the tune of $5MM combined for the Reds and Bengals stadiums. Cite: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090722/NEWS01/907230328/ . The broader economy also is down, which almost certainly wipes out things like advertising revenue, luxury seat spending and high-end concessions. (Though low-end seats and concessions may be up - some businesses, notably home video rentals and hard liquor distributors, are.) Let's split the difference on the county payments (attributing $2.5MM to the Reds) and ignore the down economy elsewhere. That's $4.5MM left.

Is that the end? No, not really. The team's payroll expense, for example, is taken as a snapshot as of opening day. When players on split contracts go up and down, they essentially replace each other, payroll-wise. When players on long-term deals or full major league contracts go down, however, their replacement's salary is in additon to the team's payroll; for example, if Mike Lincoln is replaced by Carlos Fisher the Reds remain obligated for Lincoln's full contract plus Fisher's new, major league rate. It's not a lot of money, but it is some - for a team as injured as the Reds, call it $1MM this year.

These numbers could be off in a lot of ways. Forbes could have just missed it. The Reds could have paid down a big chunk of their acquisition debt, reducing the carrying costs, or perhaps refinanced when interest rates went down after 2006. But we do have a couple of checks on my work. One is that the Reds are #19 in payroll, which, as Brutus the Pimp has shown, is well above the franchise's ranking in market size, attendance, media contract, total revenue or any other public measurement of team finances. In other words, if the Reds are scrimping, they are doing so far, far less than their peers. Far less.

We also have Jocketty's statements at the start of the season that the Reds were preserving a little bit of flexibility to allow for a mid-season acquisition, as it is easier to make a deadline deal if you can take on salary.

But the bottom like, if these numbers are close, is that the Reds have something like $3MM worth of wiggle room. If paid out to investors, that is a less than 2% return on their original investment.

As for market size, if your definition of "small market" is based solely on whether the franchise has enough cash to field a competitive team on occasion - well, there's not much to disagree with. With prudent spending, the Reds can and should be competitive more than they are. The traditional definition of "small market" is emprical, however, and while sure, the Reds draw from a broad geographic area, and sure, the team could do more to market itself outside of metro Cincinnati. Neither of those observations is unique to Cincinnati. Nor is it surprising to say that the team's economics depend primarily on the fans who are closest, as those are the fans that can go to the 2/3 of games that occur on weekdays, who can use the stadium to entertain clients, and who can support the local advertisers.

Once again your long post is interesting but mostly wrong. I am not going to go over it all again. It is just a long-winded post intended to misdirect and obfuscate from the crux of the matter.

I do not use the numbers differently from Forbes. TheNext44 and jojo have not said much, if anything, that contributes to an accurate understanding of the state of the Reds finances.

Each year a couple of teams lose value for a very short period, but over a period of a few years or more every team has gained tremendously in value. So don't claim teams have lost value. That is not true. :rolleyes: That is so obvious I can't believe you even posted otherwise. If you want to have a conversation you have to at least try to be accurate.

The money borrowed by Castellini is not carried by the team. If you borrow money to buy stock in General Motors it doesn't cause GM's debt to go up. Same with the Reds. MLB may have rules for the owners regarding debt, but that debt is not a Reds liability and does not affect the profit/loss numbers. Castellini has made so much money that he has probably paid back most of the money he borrowed anyway. It is not like the Reds are paying millions of dollars in interest on the money he borrowed (and likely paid back) years ago.

The team is only paying about $2-3 million in interest per year.

Debt limits, while interesting, don't have any effect on the Reds since they have very little debt. It certainly doesn't prohibit the Reds from spending more money to improve the team.

Of course you can leverage the equity. Many teams do it. You don't have to sell the stock to benefit from its value. That is just ridiculous.

Forbes has already predicted a $16 million profit for this year, so your assertion that revenues are way down this year due to the economy has already been proven false by the experts. The Reds are still in excellent economic shape.

You still have not refuted the notion that the Reds can improve the payroll.

None of the inaccurate factors you have posted change the big picture.

Go ahead and post another long message. You can have the last word. I am going to move on. We will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.