PDA

View Full Version : ESPN already pushing for us to lose Votto.



The Operator
10-11-2010, 10:57 PM
I don't have access to ESPN Insider, but the headline alone made me sick. As soon as a Reds player establishes himself on the national scene, ESPN is falling over themselves to figure out somewhere else for him to play. It makes me sick.

Here's the link:
Votto's future in Cincy in doubt. (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/features/rumors?date=20101011&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb %2ffeatures%2frumors%3fdate%3d20101011#7353)

I know he's arb. eligible and may be hard to keep long term, but I have heard absolutely nothing yet that has made me think we're already at risk of losing him. If you ask me, this is just ESPN wanting us to be a good little farm team and fork over our best player.

Eric_the_Red
10-11-2010, 11:05 PM
Hope this is okay for me to post:


It's pretty safe to assume that when Joey Votto and his agent are think arbi's this summer, it'll mean more than a Big Montana. The possible NL MVP pulled down $550K this season, which is less than Albert Pujols makes every two weeks. He's arbitration-eligible this offseason, and should expect to jump to somewhere closer to the $6-8 million range. But his long-term prospects in Cincy are an interesting case.

Asked last week about the topic, and whether he'd be interested in a long-term pact with Cincy, Votto said "I don't know."

For now, the wide expectation is Cincy will pay him arbi dollars in 2011, with an eye toward a longer pact.

Not sure why this is "Insider" information.

Ghosts of 1990
10-11-2010, 11:05 PM
Well, I've got something that says the opposite. Votto's girlfriend on twitter today talked about them buying a home in Cincy today; finalizing things today on the house.

Brutus
10-11-2010, 11:08 PM
I don't have access to ESPN Insider, but the headline alone made me sick. As soon as a Reds player establishes himself on the national scene, ESPN is falling over themselves to figure out somewhere else for him to play. It makes me sick.

Here's the link:
Votto's future in Cincy in doubt. (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/features/rumors?date=20101011&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb %2ffeatures%2frumors%3fdate%3d20101011#7353)

I know he's arb. eligible and may be hard to keep long term, but I have heard absolutely nothing yet that has made me think we're already at risk of losing him. If you ask me, this is just ESPN wanting us to be a good little farm team and fork over our best player.

It's probably more of a description on the state of baseball's finances than anything against the Reds. After all, it's natural to expect a player of Votto's stature to be tough to keep around long-term.

sivman17
10-11-2010, 11:09 PM
Well, I've got something that says the opposite. Votto's girlfriend on twitter today talked about them buying a home in Cincy today; finalizing things today on the house.

:confused:

Is this for real?

Eric_the_Red
10-11-2010, 11:10 PM
Well, I've got something that says the opposite. Votto's girlfriend on twitter today talked about them buying a home in Cincy today; finalizing things today on the house.

Why didn't Heather just post that here? ;)

Ghosts of 1990
10-11-2010, 11:21 PM
I hope this house today is the one!! Tired of hunting...

yes, she follows me on twitter and i follow her. above was her post today.

Brutus
10-11-2010, 11:22 PM
yes, she follows me on twitter and i follow her. above was her post today.

Now, I gotta ask the question if you don't mind...why are you following Joey Votto's wife on Twitter?

The Operator
10-11-2010, 11:25 PM
Is that Votto's girlfriend or are they married?

Good thing Marge is no longer owner of The Reds or Joey would be Davey Johnson'd if her and Joey aren't married yet.

savafan
10-12-2010, 01:11 AM
I have a direct source inside the Reds front office at the new job. I don't foresee us losing Votto...

Matt700wlw
10-12-2010, 01:15 AM
I have a direct source inside the Reds front office at the new job. I don't foresee us losing Votto...

I need a job.... :)

savafan
10-12-2010, 01:17 AM
I need a job.... :)

LOL, we share a floor with the Cumulus stations. ;)

Brutus
10-12-2010, 01:19 AM
I have a direct source inside the Reds front office at the new job. I don't foresee us losing Votto...

Short of signing a hometown discount with the Blue Jays, by Votto's own admission he doesn't seem to be a big market kind of guy. That's one of the reasons I've never really been concerned with his signability.

So I've kind of thought Cincinnati could keep him around a while, unless he decided to go play for Toronto.

savafan
10-12-2010, 01:21 AM
Short of signing a hometown discount with the Blue Jays, by Votto's own admission he doesn't seem to be a big market kind of guy. That's one of the reasons I've never really been concerned with his signability.

So I've kind of thought Cincinnati could keep him around a while, unless he decided to go play for Toronto.

You're pretty much 100% dead on. ;)

Brutus
10-12-2010, 01:27 AM
You're pretty much 100% dead on. ;)

Thanks! Excuse me while I take a moment to relish that.

corkedbat
10-12-2010, 01:52 AM
Toronto was my second thought also (after the Reds signing him to an LTC).

I love Votto and would like to see the Reds keep he and Bruce around as the cornerstones of the franchise. I think this is the offseason you really start gauging his interest in signing long-term and opening a dialogue. If there are any doubts, you probably keep Yonder in Lousiville for another year and start taking stock of the top 4 or 5 prospects in the Jays organization.

Topcat
10-12-2010, 04:56 AM
Toronto was my second thought also (after the Reds signing him to an LTC).

I love Votto and would like to see the Reds keep he and Bruce around as the cornerstones of the franchise. I think this is the offseason you really start gauging his interest in signing long-term and opening a dialogue. If there are any doubts, you probably keep Yonder in Lousiville for another year and start taking stock of the top 4 or 5 prospects in the Jays organization.

My bet is Votto remains a Red for a very very long time. He is not a star seeking market guy and is very humble(ahem *Canadian*) I believe his issues with passing of his father and his medical issue and how the Reds handled it also hold a lot of weight with him. He values loyalty and it has come from the Reds and most likely will be returned home town discount wise.:beerme:

GAC
10-12-2010, 07:05 AM
I think the Reds will let Votto go through the arb process. My HOPE is that they will seriously make the commitment though to sign this guy longterm. Players like Joey are the cornerstone, that "Pujols", to any organization. And coming from St Louis I'd think Jocketty would realize this. You build around players like this. It's a no-brainer IMO.

GoReds
10-12-2010, 08:06 AM
I would like to believe that the Reds have built a bit of goodwill with Joey. They appeared to handle his depression issues with kid gloves and didn't force him to left field to make way for an unproven rookie. The fact that the team is young and should be competitive for the next few years should also be in the Reds favor.

Roy Tucker
10-12-2010, 08:24 AM
I'll put this in here because I liked it:

Sports Illustrated's Line of the Week:



Toronto native Joey Votto, on ex-Phillies hurler Mitch Williams- who in '93 gave up the Series-winning homer to the Jays' Joe Carter- calling the Reds an "unthreatening playoff team":

"I'd like to thank Mitch for giving me one of my favorite childhood memories"

15fan
10-12-2010, 08:28 AM
Toronto native Joey Votto, on ex-Phillies hurler Mitch Williams- who in '93 gave up the Series-winning homer to the Jays' Joe Carter- calling the Reds an "unthreatening playoff team":

"I'd like to thank Mitch for giving me one of my favorite childhood memories"

...

Mitch Williams replies to Joey Votto: "Thanks for proving me right."

lollipopcurve
10-12-2010, 08:39 AM
I hope they make him a fair offer right out of the chute.

He's the right guy to start with, as they build their foundation for staying good.

medford
10-12-2010, 08:44 AM
I think signing of Votto long term would be huge, beyond just his individual production on the Diamond. I think it would send a clear signal to any free agent or potential trade partner (w/ a player w/ a N-T clause) that the Reds are prepared to be a more than 1x every 15 years playoff contender, but would like to make this routine.

OesterPoster
10-12-2010, 09:00 AM
If ESPN is basing their opinion on one flippant little hypothetical question posed to Votto, then they're idiots (well, more than I already knew they were anyway). Go back and read any interview with Votto. He doesn't answer hypothetical questions with concrete answers. Give him a real question, and he'll give you a real answer.

MWM
10-12-2010, 09:09 AM
I think maybe we're being a bit naive. I highly doubt the Reds have the cash to pay a guy who's likely to become one of the top 5 paid players in the game. He might not be a NY guy, but Joey isn't going to walk away from millions of dollars to stay in Cincy. I'd be surprised if he stayed in Cincy in his FA years.

Chip R
10-12-2010, 09:19 AM
Well, I've got something that says the opposite. Votto's girlfriend on twitter today talked about them buying a home in Cincy today; finalizing things today on the house.


Hmmmm, according to what some people said earlier this year and last year, Votto wasn't "manly" enough to have a girlfriend. :confused:

lollipopcurve
10-12-2010, 09:26 AM
I'd be surprised if he stayed in Cincy in his FA years.

I would be very surprised if he was unwilling to give up at least 1 of his FA years. Even Dunn did that. Unless they lowball him and piss him off, I think the Reds stand an excellent chance of buying him out of some free agency. Votto is a creature of habit, and he likes his profile low. Getting long-term security/certainty in a small market seems to be the kind of recipe he would like.

Raisor
10-12-2010, 10:01 AM
Hmmmm, according to what some people said earlier this year and last year, Votto wasn't "manly" enough to have a girlfriend. :confused:

yes, we seem to be getting conflicting stories!

Razor Shines
10-12-2010, 10:09 AM
I think maybe we're being a bit naive. I highly doubt the Reds have the cash to pay a guy who's likely to become one of the top 5 paid players in the game. He might not be a NY guy, but Joey isn't going to walk away from millions of dollars to stay in Cincy. I'd be surprised if he stayed in Cincy in his FA years.

I agree with this. Seems like a lot of people think they know who Joey really is and I'm sure there are a lot of other teams who were certain their up and coming star was going to stick around because he was such a good guy.

The Operator
10-12-2010, 10:38 AM
Mitch Williams replies to Joey Votto: "Thanks for proving me right."
Aww, poor Mitch.

He's dying for someone to be a bigger postseason goat than him. Keep trying, Mitch. Losing in an NLDS is a lot different than the complete meltdown you pulled on the biggest stage in baseball. Mitch Williams is the Ray Finkle of MLB.

flyer85
10-12-2010, 10:54 AM
in most cases, small market = small window.

The opportunity to lock Joey up for less than market value have passed. If the Reds want to keep him it will cost a lot of money.

Chip R
10-12-2010, 10:56 AM
yes, we seem to be getting conflicting stories!


So he doesn't like fancy coffee anymore?

bucksfan2
10-12-2010, 11:00 AM
in most cases, small market = small window.

The opportunity to lock Joey up for less than market value have passed. If the Reds want to keep him it will cost a lot of money.

Small market means you have to be smart with your money. To pay for a corner stone first baseman that will anchor the 3 spot in your lineup over the course of 6-7 years is a smart baseball decision. It may take up a large chunk of the salary but MVP type players are well worth the money. What would the Cards look like without Albert?

sivman17
10-12-2010, 11:05 AM
Pujols has been making $10 mil+ since 2005. The Cards had about a $73 million payroll until this year, which is about the same as the Reds. We had been paying Harang a boatload of money. We seemed to be able to snatch Chapman. We're paying Arroyo a lot of money, but that won't be long term. I think we'll find a way to afford Votto.

Raisor
10-12-2010, 11:17 AM
So he doesn't like fancy coffee anymore?

what am I going to do with the coffee press I got him for his birthday?

Ghosts of 1990
10-12-2010, 11:47 AM
Now, I gotta ask the question if you don't mind...why are you following Joey Votto's wife on Twitter?

She started following 'me' or my blog.

Ghosts of 1990
10-12-2010, 11:54 AM
Hmmmm, according to what some people said earlier this year and last year, Votto wasn't "manly" enough to have a girlfriend. :confused:

I'd say two things; either be more specific or don't go there at all. You know what I mean? The fact you remember it must mean you thought it was funny.

Raisor
10-12-2010, 12:12 PM
I'd say two things; either be more specific or don't go there at all. You know what I mean? The fact you remember it must mean you thought it was funny.

personally, I thought it was rather sad.

hebroncougar
10-12-2010, 12:21 PM
Pujols has been making $10 mil+ since 2005. The Cards had about a $73 million payroll until this year, which is about the same as the Reds. We had been paying Harang a boatload of money. We seemed to be able to snatch Chapman. We're paying Arroyo a lot of money, but that won't be long term. I think we'll find a way to afford Votto.

Here are the Cards payrolls for the past few years:

* 2010: $ 94,220,500
* 2009: $ 88,528,409
* 2008: $ 99,624,449
* 2007: $ 90,286,823
* 2006: $ 88,891,371
* 2005: $ 92,106,833
* 2004: $ 83,228,333

Chip R
10-12-2010, 12:24 PM
I'd say two things; either be more specific or don't go there at all. You know what I mean? The fact you remember it must mean you thought it was funny.


Well, I just think it is a lesson to be learned about rumors and innuendo - especially on the internet. You started a rumor about Votto and now you come back with information that says just the opposite. It goes to credibility. Which is true, your original information or this new information?

dougdirt
10-12-2010, 01:20 PM
This isn't a case of ESPN pushing for the Reds to lose Votto, its a case of simple math. Great players get paid $15+M per season. The Reds don't have that kind of money, never have. To ESPN, it seems simple, the writing is on the wall unless something happens and the Reds get flush with cash (certainly possible if they head back to the playoffs again next year as well).

MWM
10-12-2010, 01:21 PM
Votto is a creature of habit, and he likes his profile low. Getting long-term security/certainty in a small market seems to be the kind of recipe he would like.

These are the types of things we hear a lot from markets like Cincy trying to rationalize that their stars will stick around, but it rarely comes to pass. He may trade in a year of FA to get a better deal in his arb years, but ultimately, he's going to demand a HUGE payday and the Reds aren't likely to be able to compete with the big market clubs. We should enjoy him the next few years, but be prepared for the inevitable.

One thing to also consider is that Joey has risen to stardom a little later than most elite players. He's already 27 and just hitting arbitration. That means his timing to be able to demand one of those gigantic free agency paydays is a little more urgent. That could make him less likely to put it off any longer than necessary. He doesn't want to go on the free market for the first time at 32 years old.

lollipopcurve
10-12-2010, 01:37 PM
These are the types of things we hear a lot from markets like Cincy trying to rationalize that their stars will stick around, but it rarely comes to pass. He may trade in a year of FA to get a better deal in his arb years, but ultimately, he's going to demand a HUGE payday and the Reds aren't likely to be able to compete with the big market clubs. We should enjoy him the next few years, but be prepared for the inevitable.

One thing to also consider is that Joey has risen to stardom a little later than most elite players. He's already 27 and just hitting arbitration. That means his timing to be able to demand one of those gigantic free agency paydays is a little more urgent. That could make him less likely to put it off any longer than necessary. He doesn't want to go on the free market for the first time at 32 years old.

This is reasonable, no doubt. But, like I said, don't be surprised if Votto doesn't fit the mold.

bucksfan2
10-12-2010, 01:44 PM
This isn't a case of ESPN pushing for the Reds to lose Votto, its a case of simple math. Great players get paid $15+M per season. The Reds don't have that kind of money, never have. To ESPN, it seems simple, the writing is on the wall unless something happens and the Reds get flush with cash (certainly possible if they head back to the playoffs again next year as well).

I would much rather play a player of Votto's ilk $15M a season over playing that for Cordero, Harang, Milton, etc. The Twins can afford to sign both Morneau and Mauer, the Rays Longoria, the Marlins Ramirez, the Cards Pujols, the Brewers Braun, etc. Granted some of these guys were signed early on in their careers, but small market teams can sign their stars. If the Reds feel that they can not afford Votto than they may as well trade him now and change their name to the Cincinnati Pirates.

fearofpopvol1
10-12-2010, 02:35 PM
I don't have access to ESPN Insider, but the headline alone made me sick. As soon as a Reds player establishes himself on the national scene, ESPN is falling over themselves to figure out somewhere else for him to play. It makes me sick.

Here's the link:
Votto's future in Cincy in doubt. (http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/features/rumors?date=20101011&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb %2ffeatures%2frumors%3fdate%3d20101011#7353)

I know he's arb. eligible and may be hard to keep long term, but I have heard absolutely nothing yet that has made me think we're already at risk of losing him. If you ask me, this is just ESPN wanting us to be a good little farm team and fork over our best player.

To be quite honest, I think your thread title is extremely misleading. ESPN is not pushing for the Reds to lose Votto and nothing in the piece suggests that. And this is coming from someone who pretty much loathes ESPN.

WMR
10-12-2010, 02:39 PM
Well, I just think it is a lesson to be learned about rumors and innuendo - especially on the internet. You started a rumor about Votto and now you come back with information that says just the opposite. It goes to credibility. Which is true, your original information or this new information?

What was the original information?

Tom Servo
10-12-2010, 03:21 PM
What was the original information?
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2102979&postcount=276

WMR
10-12-2010, 03:28 PM
oh good lord. :lol:

Damn Metrosexuals. He'd be better off on Antiques Roadshow.

jojo
10-12-2010, 03:39 PM
Does Jay Bruce's girlfriend twitter?

TheNext44
10-12-2010, 03:40 PM
Hmmmm, according to what some people said earlier this year and last year, Votto wasn't "manly" enough to have a girlfriend. :confused:

Rock Hudson, John Travolta and Tom Cruise married women. Even Liberace had girlfriends. Votto having a girlfriend really doesn't contradict the ridiculous rumor that was started earlier. I still think that the earlier one was bull, but this does not contradict it. Just for the record.

TheNext44
10-12-2010, 03:42 PM
This isn't a case of ESPN pushing for the Reds to lose Votto, its a case of simple math. Great players get paid $15+M per season. The Reds don't have that kind of money, never have. To ESPN, it seems simple, the writing is on the wall unless something happens and the Reds get flush with cash (certainly possible if they head back to the playoffs again next year as well).

Cordero, Arroyo, Harang.

If the Reds can pay them what they did, and still make the playoffs, they can find a way to afford Votto. Not saying they will, but the math does work, even without a bump in payroll.

TheNext44
10-12-2010, 03:43 PM
Does Jay Bruce's girlfriend twitter?

A few years ago, that post would have gotten you banned for indecent remarks. :cool:

sivman17
10-12-2010, 03:56 PM
Here are the Cards payrolls for the past few years:

* 2010: $ 94,220,500
* 2009: $ 88,528,409
* 2008: $ 99,624,449
* 2007: $ 90,286,823
* 2006: $ 88,891,371
* 2005: $ 92,106,833
* 2004: $ 83,228,333


http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/2010baseballteampayrolls.htm

Our web sites seem to have conflicting numbers.. I don't know what to believe!

After further research it appears your numbers are probably more accurate. Okay, well anyway I still think we can afford Votto if we give him $15 mil a year.

Ghosts of 1990
10-12-2010, 03:59 PM
Rock Hudson, John Travolta and Tom Cruise married women. Even Liberace had girlfriends. Votto having a girlfriend really doesn't contradict the ridiculous rumor that was started earlier. I still think that the earlier one was bull, but this does not contradict it. Just for the record.

And what was that 'rumor'? There wasn't one.

You guys are walking a fine line here. In said post nothing was suggestive except for the fact that I was told what Votto's main hobbies were. I didn't say anything about his sexual orientation, did I? If I was suggestive about anything it was about toughness; nothing sexual. It was relative to him as a ballplayer.

You know, I will always remember what a long time member told me. It's best to just stand back and let you guys take your potshots and not get drawn into them. But starting with what was said by Chip; it was off-base.

traderumor
10-12-2010, 04:27 PM
Today, chewing the nails, wondering if Votto will be a career Red

Tomorrow, trying to figure out how to get out from under his albatross contract;)

Brutus
10-12-2010, 04:28 PM
And what was that 'rumor'? There wasn't one.

You guys are walking a fine line here. In said post nothing was suggestive except for the fact that I was told what Votto's main hobbies were. I didn't say anything about his sexual orientation, did I? If I was suggestive about anything it was about toughness; nothing sexual. It was relative to him as a ballplayer.

You know, I will always remember what a long time member told me. It's best to just stand back and let you guys take your potshots and not get drawn into them. But starting with what was said by Chip; it was off-base.

I don't think you're helping yourself. To me, you should have stuck with that being an implication of orientation, because I think it's less a reach to stereotype than to implicate a lack of toughness.

dougdirt
10-12-2010, 04:50 PM
I would much rather play a player of Votto's ilk $15M a season over playing that for Cordero, Harang, Milton, etc. The Twins can afford to sign both Morneau and Mauer, the Rays Longoria, the Marlins Ramirez, the Cards Pujols, the Brewers Braun, etc. Granted some of these guys were signed early on in their careers, but small market teams can sign their stars. If the Reds feel that they can not afford Votto than they may as well trade him now and change their name to the Cincinnati Pirates.

I would much rather hand Votto that kind of money over the Reds/former Reds you mentioned, but the other teams don't quite fit the same bill.

The Twins had 3,223,640 people walk through the turn styles this year. The Reds just 2,060,550. Given the average ticket price at each park, that is an EXTRA $19M the Twins made versus the Reds this year from ticket sales.

The Rays are losing a ton of money this year. They expect to lower payroll significantly next season. Longoria is not under contract for anything over 11.5M and doesn't even top 7.5M until 2015. He isn't making 'expected Votto type' money.

Hanley Ramirez is getting paid, but he is also on a team that is going to surround him him 20 minimum pay players. The Reds could do that too I guess if they just call up the Bats and let Votto play first.

The Cardinals are in a significantly higher payroll scale than we are.

Braun is much like Longoria, never topping $12M over his contract.

westofyou
10-12-2010, 04:51 PM
I don't think you're helping yourself. To me, you should have stuck with that being an implication of orientation, because I think it's less a reach to stereotype than to implicate a lack of toughness.

I knew Joey wasn't tough when I read he didn't play hockey. :p:

Brutus
10-12-2010, 04:57 PM
I knew Joey wasn't tough when I read he didn't play hockey. :p:

Tonsil hockey or ice hockey? (sorry, couldn't resist)

I'll be here all day. Make sure you tip your waitress.

jojo
10-12-2010, 05:02 PM
You guys are walking a fine line here.

You should probably get the benefit of the doubt, but given the original quote, I don't think it's fair to claim a thicker line beneath your feet....

Benihana
10-12-2010, 05:25 PM
Cordero, Arroyo, Harang.

If the Reds can pay them what they did, and still make the playoffs, they can find a way to afford Votto. Not saying they will, but the math does work, even without a bump in payroll.

True, but...I do worry a bit thinking about Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, et al enterting their arb/FA years at roughly the same time. This year's Reds were able to make the playoffs with those albatross contracts because they had so many young stars contributing before they get expensive. Votto gets expensive at the same time as the rest of the young stars, and it will be very difficult to hang onto all of them- especially when I don't see any youngsters on the horizon that can contribute for the league minimum the same way Votto, Bruce, and the pitchers all did this year.

Cordero, Phillips and Rolen should (will) be gone after next year or the year after. That clears some room. I am not in favor of extending Arroyo beyond next season, and hopefully that should clear some more. But can the Reds afford Votto at 15+ per if Bruce, Cueto, Volquez and one of Bailey/Leake/Wood are all making in the 7-12 range? That becomes a lot more dicey.

Scrap Irony
10-12-2010, 05:33 PM
But can the Reds afford Votto at 15+ per if Bruce, Cueto, Volquez and one of Bailey/Leake/Wood are all making in the 7-12 range? That becomes a lot more dicey.

If all those players make that at the same time, that probably means they're really successful ballplayers.

That should mean the Reds are perennial playoff and World Series contenders. That, in turn, should make the Reds a much larger draw at home. Which would obviously mean both a bump in ticket prices and more tickets sold. Which affects the bottom line.

In short, success breeds a larger "market" and enough payroll wiggle room to make the team competitive.

KronoRed
10-12-2010, 05:38 PM
Here are the Cards payrolls for the past few years:

* 2010: $ 94,220,500
* 2009: $ 88,528,409
* 2008: $ 99,624,449
* 2007: $ 90,286,823
* 2006: $ 88,891,371
* 2005: $ 92,106,833
* 2004: $ 83,228,333

Exactly, the Reds and Cards do not operate in the same financial area, that said the Reds can afford Votto, if they get creative.

Benihana
10-12-2010, 05:57 PM
If all those players make that at the same time, that probably means they're really successful ballplayers.

That should mean the Reds are perennial playoff and World Series contenders. That, in turn, should make the Reds a much larger draw at home. Which would obviously mean both a bump in ticket prices and more tickets sold. Which affects the bottom line.

In short, success breeds a larger "market" and enough payroll wiggle room to make the team competitive.

I would be surprised if at least two or three of Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake are not making at least $7MM per season in 2013.

It's not really that different than what is happening with the Rays right now, or what happened with the Padres and Expos back in the early 1990s, the Indians in the mid/late 1990s, and the Marlins after 2003. The Reds, like all of those teams did, have a plethora of young, inexpensive talent on their hands right now. However, that talent will inevitably get expensive, and when they all get expensive at the same time, they will be faced with some serious decisions to make.

Caveat Emperor
10-12-2010, 06:33 PM
Exactly, the Reds and Cards do not operate in the same financial area, that said the Reds can afford Votto, if they get creative.

They can afford to pay him whatever he wants. The issue becomes paying the other 24 guys he plays with every week.

Ultimately, two factors may stay Jocketty's hand in any long-term contract negotiations with Votto:

1.) Yonder Alonso
2.) Jay Bruce

There's an in-house, top draft pick prospect ready to take over for Joey Votto right now who will cost a fraction of Votto would command per year in any contract that buys out his Arb years & some FA years. There's also another player on the team that has seemingly turned the corner and who is primed for a monster season in 2011 in Jay Bruce. Bruce was absolutely nails in August & September, right when the pressure was the highest, posting an OPS north of 1.000 during that stretch.

Can the Reds afford both Jay Bruce and Joey Votto? If Bruce breaks out, probably not. The time may come in the very near future where the Reds will have to decide which one of those two is "their guy" and which one will need to be flipped to control cost...and it just so happens the more expensive the two right now has a replacement on the 40 man.

Just food for thought.

dougdirt
10-12-2010, 06:42 PM
Can the Reds afford both Jay Bruce and Joey Votto? If Bruce breaks out, probably not. The time may come in the very near future where the Reds will have to decide which one of those two is "their guy" and which one will need to be flipped to control cost...and it just so happens the more expensive the two right now has a replacement on the 40 man.

Just food for thought.

Not just that, but Bruce is likely to be better for the term of an extension given his current age vs Votto's current age. I hope we can keep both, but if we had to choose one I hope its the guy with positional value who is also younger.

Benihana
10-12-2010, 06:49 PM
They can afford to pay him whatever he wants. The issue becomes paying the other 24 guys he plays with every week.

Ultimately, two factors may stay Jocketty's hand in any long-term contract negotiations with Votto:

1.) Yonder Alonso
2.) Jay Bruce

There's an in-house, top draft pick prospect ready to take over for Joey Votto right now who will cost a fraction of Votto would command per year in any contract that buys out his Arb years & some FA years. There's also another player on the team that has seemingly turned the corner and who is primed for a monster season in 2011 in Jay Bruce. Bruce was absolutely nails in August & September, right when the pressure was the highest, posting an OPS north of 1.000 during that stretch.

Can the Reds afford both Jay Bruce and Joey Votto? If Bruce breaks out, probably not. The time may come in the very near future where the Reds will have to decide which one of those two is "their guy" and which one will need to be flipped to control cost...and it just so happens the more expensive the two right now has a replacement on the 40 man.

Just food for thought.

While this is sound logic, there is ZERO chance the Reds move Joey Votto in the next year. So does Alonso sit around and rot on the bench until that time? I think the more likely scenario is Jocketty doesn't worry about what's coming 2-3 years from now, and moves Alonso in the next 9 months to plug a hole on the current squad.

RBA
10-12-2010, 07:00 PM
Goodbye Joey. Thanks for the memories.

TheNext44
10-12-2010, 07:44 PM
They can afford to pay him whatever he wants. The issue becomes paying the other 24 guys he plays with every week.

Ultimately, two factors may stay Jocketty's hand in any long-term contract negotiations with Votto:

1.) Yonder Alonso
2.) Jay Bruce

There's an in-house, top draft pick prospect ready to take over for Joey Votto right now who will cost a fraction of Votto would command per year in any contract that buys out his Arb years & some FA years. There's also another player on the team that has seemingly turned the corner and who is primed for a monster season in 2011 in Jay Bruce. Bruce was absolutely nails in August & September, right when the pressure was the highest, posting an OPS north of 1.000 during that stretch.

Can the Reds afford both Jay Bruce and Joey Votto? If Bruce breaks out, probably not. The time may come in the very near future where the Reds will have to decide which one of those two is "their guy" and which one will need to be flipped to control cost...and it just so happens the more expensive the two right now has a replacement on the 40 man.

Just food for thought.

This year, with a $76M payroll, the Reds payed over $36M to Harang, Cordero and Arroyo. Only one of those players even came close to earning their paycheck.

I think the Reds can find a way to pay both Bruce and Votto that much (I can't imagine them costing that much more) if they both are legitimate MVP candidates. Considering that the payroll is likely to increase, and probably will hit round $90M by the time both are asking for MVP money, it will be very easy to pay for both, and still have room for other big contracts, and field a very competitive team.

Big contracts are not an issue for a small market team. Bad contracts are.

dougdirt
10-12-2010, 08:08 PM
This year, with a $76M payroll, the Reds payed over $36M to Harang, Cordero and Arroyo. Only one of those players even came close to earning their paycheck.

I think the Reds can find a way to pay both Bruce and Votto that much (I can't imagine them costing that much more) if they both are legitimate MVP candidates. Considering that the payroll is likely to increase, and probably will hit round $90M by the time both are asking for MVP money, it will be very easy to pay for both, and still have room for other big contracts, and field a very competitive team.

Big contracts are not an issue for a small market team. Bad contracts are.
I can see Bruce and Votto making a combined $30M a season for a few years.

hebroncougar
10-12-2010, 08:38 PM
This year, with a $76M payroll, the Reds payed over $36M to Harang, Cordero and Arroyo. Only one of those players even came close to earning their paycheck.

I think the Reds can find a way to pay both Bruce and Votto that much (I can't imagine them costing that much more) if they both are legitimate MVP candidates. Considering that the payroll is likely to increase, and probably will hit round $90M by the time both are asking for MVP money, it will be very easy to pay for both, and still have room for other big contracts, and field a very competitive team.

Big contracts are not an issue for a small market team. Bad contracts are.

I'm all for it, but eventually you're going to have to pay the piper for some of this young pitching too. Volquez and Cueto are heading towards paydays.

Ghosts of 1990
10-12-2010, 11:18 PM
I'm all for it, but eventually you're going to have to pay the piper for some of this young pitching too. Volquez and Cueto are heading towards paydays.

I think given the depth, you the choice between one or the other isn't Bruce or Votto but maybe Cueto or Volquez.

VR
10-12-2010, 11:46 PM
I think the moral of the story is....the window with all this talent is a small one. Get a plan together quickly to win it all in the next 3 years, 'cuz all these guys won't be around in 2014.

Mario-Rijo
10-12-2010, 11:52 PM
I can see Bruce and Votto making a combined $30M a season for a few years.

Probably and they are gonna ruin the chance to do so by re-signing guys like Arroyo. I hate to keep harping on this front office considering what they just accomplished but every thing they do shows a strong lack of talent evaluating ability.

westofyou
10-13-2010, 12:02 AM
Probably and they are gonna ruin the chance to do so by re-signing guys like Arroyo. I hate to keep harping on this front office considering what they just accomplished but every thing they do shows a strong lack of talent evaluating ability.

Winning the division for the 1st time in 15 years says otherwise.

Slyder
10-13-2010, 12:05 AM
Rock Hudson, John Travolta and Tom Cruise married women. Even Liberace had girlfriends. Votto having a girlfriend really doesn't contradict the ridiculous rumor that was started earlier. I still think that the earlier one was bull, but this does not contradict it. Just for the record.

Just because how ridiculous it is considering Votto's here for another 2 years at least if he doesnt sign long term...

YouTube - Jeff Dunham - Strip Club/Gay Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGxZ2FKwQdI&feature=related)

I believe Votto will be doning the wishbone C for many more years.

Benihana
10-13-2010, 09:58 AM
Probably and they are gonna ruin the chance to do so by re-signing guys like Arroyo. I hate to keep harping on this front office considering what they just accomplished but every thing they do shows a strong lack of talent evaluating ability.

Really? After just winning the division for the first time in 15 years?

I don't want an extension for Arroyo either, but I was also adamantly opposed to the Rolen deal. I'm not saying that this is the case with Arroyo, but sometimes the front office sees or knows something about a player, whether its leadership ability or otherwise, that makes sense for them to be kept around.

I was one of the biggest discounters of "experience" and "veteran presence" up until this year. First, I saw what Rolen brought to this team. Then, I saw the entire team (strangely enough Rolen included) melt down in their first postseason experience like a four year old on stage for the first time. Arroyo was one of the ONLY players on the team that this didn't apply to, and funny enough, was one of the only players on the team with actual postseason experience. Maybe that means something, especially when you have Bailey's fragile psyche, Volquez's inconsistency, and two rookies (three with Chapman) in a starting rotation. If the Reds really are going to be perennail playoff contenders for the next few years, maybe they need a steadying presence like Arroyo in the rotation.

Then again, maybe not. I'm very happy Arroyo is coming back in 2011. At this point, I'd be happy leaving it at that. Let's see how the youngsters mature next season.


FWIW, I also agree with one of the previous posters who said the more interesting (and immediate) choice could/should be not between Votto and Bruce, but Cueto and Volquez. If the Reds choose wisely there (and I'm not sure which one is the wiser choice), cash the other one in for proper value, they WILL be a perennial playoff contender going forward.

BCubb2003
10-13-2010, 05:38 PM
By my calculations the Reds have had at least one player who spent his entire career with the Reds, every year since 1967. Although the unbroken line does get a little thin at times.

Big Klu
10-13-2010, 07:36 PM
By my calculations the Reds have had at least one player who spent his entire career with the Reds, every year since 1967. Although the unbroken line does get a little thin at times.

Johnny Bench: 1967-83
Dave Concepcion: 1970-88
Barry Larkin: 1986-2004
Brian Shackelford: 2005-06
Homer Bailey: 2007-10
Jared Burton: 2007-10
Ryan Hanigan: 2007-10
Joey Votto: 2007-10

dougdirt
10-13-2010, 09:55 PM
I was one of the biggest discounters of "experience" and "veteran presence" up until this year. First, I saw what Rolen brought to this team. Then, I saw the entire team (strangely enough Rolen included) melt down in their first postseason experience like a four year old on stage for the first time. Arroyo was one of the ONLY players on the team that this didn't apply to, and funny enough, was one of the only players on the team with actual postseason experience. Maybe that means something, especially when you have Bailey's fragile psyche, Volquez's inconsistency, and two rookies (three with Chapman) in a starting rotation. If the Reds really are going to be perennail playoff contenders for the next few years, maybe they need a steadying presence like Arroyo in the rotation.


The only guys who showed up offensively were Stubbs, Bruce and Phillips. They had zero playoff games under their belts and only Phillips is a 'vet'. The pitching staff had an ERA under 3.00 as a whole. There were some absolute blunders going on in the field, by a lot of guys. But on the pitching staff, Volquez was the only guy who struggled. Everyone else performed quite well.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 10:02 PM
Probably and they are gonna ruin the chance to do so by re-signing guys like Arroyo. I hate to keep harping on this front office considering what they just accomplished but every thing they do shows a strong lack of talent evaluating ability.

Really?

kaldaniels
10-13-2010, 10:43 PM
This almost deserves a thread of its own but the question is begging to be asked.

At this moment I see Votto and Bruce as easily 70 Million+ guys when they first hit free agency...I don't know (but I hope they can) that the Reds can afford them both.

So simply...who will you choose....

Votto or Bruce?

kaldaniels
10-13-2010, 10:43 PM
Johnny Bench: 1967-83
Dave Concepcion: 1970-88
Barry Larkin: 1986-2004
Brian Shackelford: 2005-06
Homer Bailey: 2007-10
Jared Burton: 2007-10
Ryan Hanigan: 2007-10
Joey Votto: 2007-10

Wow...

Concepcion,Larkin,Shackelford,Votto.

That is one weak link my friends.

edabbs44
10-13-2010, 10:53 PM
This almost deserves a thread of its own but the question is begging to be asked.

At this moment I see Votto and Bruce as easily 70 Million+ guys when they first hit free agency...I don't know (but I hope they can) that the Reds can afford them both.

So simply...who will you choose....

Votto or Bruce?

At this point it is easy...Votto, as he is the one who has reached superstar level. But ask me when they reach FA.

dougdirt
10-13-2010, 11:26 PM
This almost deserves a thread of its own but the question is begging to be asked.

At this moment I see Votto and Bruce as easily 70 Million+ guys when they first hit free agency...I don't know (but I hope they can) that the Reds can afford them both.

So simply...who will you choose....

Votto or Bruce?
Bruce, for two reasons. One, he will become a free agent at a much younger age, meaning you are very likely to get closer to prime years through his contract. Secondly, he is not already a first baseman, meaning he could provide defensive value moving forward, while Votto is already at the last spot on the totem pole.

The Operator
10-13-2010, 11:31 PM
I'm hoping they take this winter to lock up Bruce at a decent rate while they still can. They missed that chance on Votto, hopefully they won't wait until Bruce has a monster year too before they start talking LTC.

And I also obviously hope they lock Votto up, but even if he does give us somewhat of a discount, they certainly missed their chance to get one of those proverbial "sweetheart" deals by locking up a player early on.

kaldaniels
10-13-2010, 11:38 PM
You don't want to jump the gun too early on a guy, and spend 50-70 million on a flameout. But you don't want to wait till the year before the player hits free agency either.

If the Reds come up with an extension for Bruce/Votto in the next 36 months, it will be hard to blame their timing.

Were they supposed to lockup Votto for tens of millions after his mysterious bout with depression?

Were they supposed to lockup Bruce for tens of millions in June/July this year when his numbers were trending down?

I'm not knocking Votto/Bruce here, I just want to make sure the Reds front office gets a fair shake.

Ghosts of 1990
10-14-2010, 09:14 AM
You don't want to jump the gun too early on a guy, and spend 50-70 million on a flameout. But you don't want to wait till the year before the player hits free agency either.

If the Reds come up with an extension for Bruce/Votto in the next 36 months, it will be hard to blame their timing.

Were they supposed to lockup Votto for tens of millions after his mysterious bout with depression?

Were they supposed to lockup Bruce for tens of millions in June/July this year when his numbers were trending down?

I'm not knocking Votto/Bruce here, I just want to make sure the Reds front office gets a fair shake.

I think you make good points.

At some point though, don't you just have to stop looking for reasons not to lock up your quality guys long-term and just build around what looks like two great young players?

We've never gone that route, at least not really in the past 15 years and we've always been a moribund franchise during that time. Maybe the Reds should try something different this time around.

And btw, they can afford Votto and Bruce but they're going to have to lock up Bruce now.

kaldaniels
10-14-2010, 10:10 AM
FYI on my post I meant 18 months not 36.

WVRed
10-14-2010, 10:41 AM
If we ever lose Votto I hope its to the Toronto Blue Jays.

Just sayin.

bucksfan2
10-14-2010, 10:44 AM
If we ever lose Votto I hope its to the Toronto Blue Jays.

Just sayin.

I hope it is to retirement, a ways off into the future.

sivman17
10-14-2010, 10:45 AM
If we ever lose Votto I hope its to the Toronto Blue Jays.

Just sayin.

If we ever lose him I might cry... especially if it's to the Yankees, Sawx, Phillies, or Cubs.

AHHHH the thought of that scares me

Roy Tucker
10-14-2010, 12:10 PM
You don't want to jump the gun too early on a guy, and spend 50-70 million on a flameout. But you don't want to wait till the year before the player hits free agency either.



Yep. This is why MLB GMs make the big bucks to make decisions like these.

You better be daggone right or else you've either a.) let a valuable commodity go prematurely, or b.) saddled your team with a crippling salary burden.

Which makes these kinds of decisions a bit of a death leap.

TheNext44
10-14-2010, 01:43 PM
I think you make good points.

At some point though, don't you just have to stop looking for reasons not to lock up your quality guys long-term and just build around what looks like two great young players?

We've never gone that route, at least not really in the past 15 years and we've always been a moribund franchise during that time. Maybe the Reds should try something different this time around.

And btw, they can afford Votto and Bruce but they're going to have to lock up Bruce now.

Completely agree.

The Reds can field a competitive team with both Votto and Bruce making $15M+ a season as long as they both produce like $15M+ players. They just can't afford to pay both of them that much and not have both of them produce.

Ghosts of 1990
10-14-2010, 03:22 PM
One thing I want to note is I have spoken with Jay Bruce's agent several times, Matt Sosnick. He left Scott Boras Agency because he didn't get a good feeling about what that agency stood for (highest dollar, etc.). He went to Sosnick's agency for representation because they're a small, close-knit group who treats each other like people and family.

What I'm saying is by all accounts that I've 'heard', and indicator might be that Jay Bruce is more likely than Joey Votto to take a lesser amount and stay home or comfortable in Cincinnati for maybe a bit less than breaking the bank because he has said he loves Cincinnati and being a Red. I could see Joey going Jim Thome on us at the last minute more likely than Jay. But I hope we keep both.

Roy Tucker
10-14-2010, 04:38 PM
And even when players take a "lesser" home town discount, its a relative thing.

Instead of $16M, they take $15M. Its not like they are worth $16M on the open market and they take $10M because they are a good guy. They still get pretty darn close to what they are worth.

RedsBaron
10-15-2010, 06:49 AM
And even when players take a "lesser" home town discount, its a relative thing.

Instead of $16M, they take $15M. Its not like they are worth $16M on the open market and they take $10M because they are a good guy. They still get pretty darn close to what they are worth.

Very true. I have never understood those players who make up their decisions on where to play based solely upon the highest dollar. If I had a choice between a job paying me $15M and one paying me $16M, I would opt for the job I liked better, the team and city where I really wanted to be. The diiference between the two salaries isn't great enough to cause me to just chase the highest dollar. However, that doesn't mean I would accept an offer of $1M and probably not $10M, just because I'd rather play for the team making the lower offer.

bucksfan2
10-15-2010, 08:36 AM
Very true. I have never understood those players who make up their decisions on where to play based solely upon the highest dollar. If I had a choice between a job paying me $15M and one paying me $16M, I would opt for the job I liked better, the team and city where I really wanted to be. The diiference between the two salaries isn't great enough to cause me to just chase the highest dollar. However, that doesn't mean I would accept an offer of $1M and probably not $10M, just because I'd rather play for the team making the lower offer.

In reality a $1-2M difference in a $15M contract really isn't that much. It could be all made up with taxes, moving costs, relocation costs, etc. But who am I to say that $1M isn't that much.

Ghosts of 1990
10-15-2010, 09:03 AM
But think of this, if the Reds 'roll the dice' and lock up Bruce right now until he's 28 or 29 and buy out his arb-eligible years; how much could they potentially save? 30 million? 50 million? If he is truly going to be a $15 million a year guy, then maybe you save more than that. If he does a 6 year, $48 million dollar deal. It's worth thinking about and I would think that based on his age and the fact he will become a free agent again right in his prime he might do it.

RBA
10-16-2010, 12:25 PM
The writing is on the ESPN wall. Time to move on folks. Maybe we can get some LF/3rd Base/SS prospects. The whole left side of the field is going need some new blood soon.

Dom Heffner
10-16-2010, 09:28 PM
Does Jay Bruce's girlfriend twitter?

He knows her, too. His former college roommate says that the girl told him that Jay likes fishing but has trouble taking the fish off the hook, and he is pretty passionate over Danielle Steele novels.

He also signs his personal correspondence with simply a "J."

I read on a blog that these habits do concern the author, who worries that the fish thing lends itself towards not being able to hit in clutch situations.

RFS62
10-17-2010, 08:20 AM
Good analysis, Dom.

gonelong
10-18-2010, 12:20 PM
Very true. I have never understood those players who make up their decisions on where to play based solely upon the highest dollar.

I can only assume these guys feel a real sense of responsiblity to the union. Every dollar they turn down puts downward pressure on the Free agent market, the arbitration market, etc.

You are not only turning down dollars for youself, you are making that decision for each of those that come after you. This is much harder when those that came before you made the sacrafice of location in order to take the highest contract available which is a good portion of why they make so much to begin with.

I remember Barry Larkin taking a good amount of flack from the union when he signed his below market contract to stay in Cincy.

GL

/Whatever happened to ... this will be my last post for awhile. Promoted a few weeks back and filling two positions at the moment. See you all in a few months.

bucksfan2
10-18-2010, 12:36 PM
I can only assume these guys feel a real sense of responsiblity to the union. Every dollar they turn down puts downward pressure on the Free agent market, the arbitration market, etc.

You are not only turning down dollars for youself, you are making that decision for each of those that come after you. This is much harder when those that came before you made the sacrafice of location in order to take the highest contract available which is a good portion of why they make so much to begin with.

I remember Barry Larkin taking a good amount of flack from the union when he signed his below market contract to stay in Cincy.

GL

I think the union is more worried about the top tier guys than anyone else. I think they follow the trickle down effect theory. If you top notch guys get $XXM, then you second tier guys will get $XM and your next tier guys will get $YM, etc.

I remember this being a big deal when CC Sabathia was in free agency. They didn't want him to take a "home town" discount with the Angles. The Votto contract will be interesting because you are going to have both Pujols and Gonzales entering FA in the next couple of years. I would imagine Pujols would be under the most union pressure because of his stature.

MWM
10-18-2010, 03:17 PM
I don't think these guys choose solely on the highest dollars. If their options are similar financially, they'll likely choose where they want to be. But when the differnce between being where they want to be and the highest bidder becomes significant, I can't blame them for chasing the dollars.

I think it's hard for us to understand how much these guys live in fear that they're going to flame out at any time. Mike Schmidt use to obsess about it and that's what drove his work ethic. I think this probably factors into their decisions more than we can fully appreciate. They worry that they might only get one big payday that needs to last them the rest of their lives. I can see how it would be hard not to submit to the highest bidder.