PDA

View Full Version : The Problem & Blessing of Having a GREAT Horse Trader as your GM



Brisco
12-21-2010, 02:54 PM
Ok, so other than extending Jay Bruce, the Reds have had a quiet offseason. I see two main reasons (A Curse and a Blessing) for this and both of them stem from Walt Jocketty. First, some background:

Walt is a GREAT horse trader. To be a great trader you need two skills: You need to be able to properly value the other guy's goods (Buyer) and you need to properly value your own (Seller)

First, he is a better than average buyer. No, not every player he trades for turns to gold, but an above average percentage do. Walt is average aat best at finding diamonds in other folks' systems; his best trades are always when he goes after known commodities like McGwire, Rolen (twice), Edmonds (the first time), Chuck Finley, Will Clark, Daryl Kile, Edgar Rentaria, and Eckersley. He is also probably only average at signing other folks Free Agents.

However, Walt's true gift is as a seller. This is what makes him a great GM. The vast majority of players he gives up lose market value after he trades them. Prospects he trades pan out at a lower percentage than normal, and major leaguers almost universally never live up to potential or drop off a cliff from their proven performance record with a year after the trade.

Goto these pages and take a look at the rundown of his Cards trades : http://www.thestlcardinals.com/TradesofWaltJocketty.html
http://www.fungoes.net/walt-jockettys-trade-history/


In all, Walt trade 110 players away and acquired 99. Of the 99 he acquired are seven players that were all-star quality players after the trade (McGwire, Rentaria, Kile, Edmunds, Finley, Rolen & Wainwright), and 19 other players that contributed significantly at the major league level. So that is 26 quality players acquired.

So 26 of 99 were hits with seven being jackpots. Also note that of these 26, the majority were established major leaguers before the trade. Walt is not so good at spotting prospects, but he can spot proven ML talent that will help his team.

Of the 110 players traded, I could see only eight whose market value went up after the trade (Jose Jimenez, Adam Kennedy, Braden Looper, Rheal Cormier, Coco Crisp, JD Drew, Dmitri Young, and Danny Haren.) That means 102 out of 110 times Walt correctly valued the goods he was trading away. That is fantastic!

Since taking over the reds, Walt has traded away one stud about to become a free agent (Adam Dunn); Three ML bench/role players in Adam Rosales, Jeff Keppinger, & Chris Dickerson); two prospects that we can't judge yet (Brandon Waring and Josh Roenicke [although his ML era went from 2.7 to 7.13 the year after the trade, and 5.68 the year after)]; and ten ML players or prospects whose value has declined after the trade (Norris Hopper, Robert manuel, Jerry hairston, Zach Stewart (went from AAA to AA), Edwin Encarnacion, Alex Gonzalez (this one is debateable), Willie tavares (although he really had negative value at the trade), Justin Turner, Jon Coutlangus, Brad Salman, Ken Griffey, & Ryan Freel.

So, of all players traded away from the Reds, I think most would agree that only Dunn (and a few would argue for Dickerson) would have made or will make the Reds a better team in 2010, or into the future... and we would have lost Dunn regardless.

In exchange he has acquired three players that have definitly helped the Reds and will probably continue to be ML contributors: Nick Massett, Ramon Hernandez, & Scott Rolen. He has continued to show his skill in acquiring players that will help the team at the ML level, but not so much skill at spotting diamonds in the rough in other organizations... only one of the eight minor league players he has acquired (Kris Negron) is considered in our top 50 prospects according to the Minor league board.

So what does that tell us about this offseason?

First the Curse, given his proven track record, most GM's will not want to trade for any prospects that Walt is willing to give up. That is going to inhibit trades and may force Walt into overpaying for ML talent, which he has not shown the tendancy to do, hence the inaction.

Second the Blessing, if Walt likes his prospects too much to trade them, that means they are probably pretty darn good.

Because of these two reasons, I am perfectly happy with sitting back Walt letting the market come to him. He is telling anyone and everyone that he has no NEED to make any trades. I think he is right. Could we be better, yes, but Walt is not looking for the "one or two years of contention followed by rebuilding" competitive model followed by other small market teams... he is looking for a consistently competitive team year in and year out. That is good for the team, the bottom line and yes, i think it is good for the fans as well.

Sure, there are lots of ways the team could get better... but the wave of criticism of Walt that has hit ORG and the Deck in the offseason AFTER we finally get to the playoffs for the first time in forever is.... I can't even come up with the right word....

Hondo
12-21-2010, 03:16 PM
Ok, so other than extending Jay Bruce, the Reds have had a quiet offseason. I see two main reasons (A Curse and a Blessing) for this and both of them stem from Walt Jocketty. First, some background:

Walt is a GREAT horse trader. To be a great trader you need two skills: You need to be able to properly value the other guy's goods (Buyer) and you need to properly value your own (Seller)

First, he is a better than average buyer. No, not every player he trades for turns to gold, but an above average percentage do. Walt is average aat best at finding diamonds in other folks' systems; his best trades are always when he goes after known commodities like McGwire, Rolen (twice), Edmonds (the first time), Chuck Finley, Will Clark, Daryl Kile, Edgar Rentaria, and Eckersley. He is also probably only average at signing other folks Free Agents.

However, Walt's true gift is as a seller. This is what makes him a great GM. The vast majority of players he gives up lose market value after he trades them. Prospects he trades pan out at a lower percentage than normal, and major leaguers almost universally never live up to potential or drop off a cliff from their proven performance record with a year after the trade.

Goto these pages and take a look at the rundown of his Cards trades : http://www.thestlcardinals.com/TradesofWaltJocketty.html
http://www.fungoes.net/walt-jockettys-trade-history/


In all, Walt trade 110 players away and acquired 99. Of the 99 he acquired are seven players that were all-star quality players after the trade (McGwire, Rentaria, Kile, Edmunds, Finley, Rolen & Wainwright), and 19 other players that contributed significantly at the major league level. So that is 26 quality players acquired.

So 26 of 99 were hits with seven being jackpots. Also note that of these 26, the majority were established major leaguers before the trade. Walt is not so good at spotting prospects, but he can spot proven ML talent that will help his team.

Of the 110 players traded, I could see only eight whose market value went up after the trade (Jose Jimenez, Adam Kennedy, Braden Looper, Rheal Cormier, Coco Crisp, JD Drew, Dmitri Young, and Danny Haren.) That means 102 out of 110 times Walt correctly valued the goods he was trading away. That is fantastic!

Since taking over the reds, Walt has traded away one stud about to become a free agent (Adam Dunn); Three ML bench/role players in Adam Rosales, Jeff Keppinger, & Chris Dickerson); two prospects that we can't judge yet (Brandon Waring and Josh Roenicke [although his ML era went from 2.7 to 7.13 the year after the trade, and 5.68 the year after)]; and ten ML players or prospects whose value has declined after the trade (Norris Hopper, Robert manuel, Jerry hairston, Zach Stewart (went from AAA to AA), Edwin Encarnacion, Alex Gonzalez (this one is debateable), Willie tavares (although he really had negative value at the trade), Justin Turner, Jon Coutlangus, Brad Salman, Ken Griffey, & Ryan Freel.

So, of all players traded away from the Reds, I think most would agree that only Dunn (and a few would argue for Dickerson) would have made or will make the Reds a better team in 2010, or into the future... and we would have lost Dunn regardless.

In exchange he has acquired three players that have definitly helped the Reds and will probably continue to be ML contributors: Nick Massett, Ramon Hernandez, & Scott Rolen. He has continued to show his skill in acquiring players that will help the team at the ML level, but not so much skill at spotting diamonds in the rough in other organizations... only one of the eight minor league players he has acquired (Kris Negron) is considered in our top 50 prospects according to the Minor league board.

So what does that tell us about this offseason?

First the Curse, given his proven track record, most GM's will not want to trade for any prospects that Walt is willing to give up. That is going to inhibit trades and may force Walt into overpaying for ML talent, which he has not shown the tendancy to do, hence the inaction.

Second the Blessing, if Walt likes his prospects too much to trade them, that means they are probably pretty darn good.

Because of these two reasons, I am perfectly happy with sitting back Walt letting the market come to him. He is telling anyone and everyone that he has no NEED to make any trades. I think he is right. Could we be better, yes, but Walt is not looking for the "one or two years of contention followed by rebuilding" competitive model followed by other small market teams... he is looking for a consistently competitive team year in and year out. That is good for the team, the bottom line and yes, i think it is good for the fans as well.

Sure, there are lots of ways the team could get better... but the wave of criticism of Walt that has hit ORG and the Deck in the offseason AFTER we finally get to the playoffs for the first time in forever is.... I can't even come up with the right word....

I like what one person in the ORG said in response to another poster whose stance was "The Reds won 91 Games in 2010 and I think standing pat is the best move Walt could make"

The Response:

"The Phillies won 97 games and went out and signed Cliff Lee."

Brisco
12-21-2010, 03:57 PM
I like what one person in the ORG said in response to another poster whose stance was "The Reds won 91 Games in 2010 and I think standing pat is the best move Walt could make"

The Response:

"The Phillies won 97 games and went out and signed Cliff Lee."

I am sorry, but I don't really understand the relevance. This is a pure strawman.

I have yet to see a single poster on either board say that if the right deal is out there that we should pass because our roster is perfect.

The is question is NOT whether we should try to upgrade... the issue is should we overpay in order to do so? Are we desperate to the point we have to pay the price in terms of young talent, no matter how exorbitant? I do not believe we are.

What is the cause of this desparation? Are we a roster filled with aging veterans sure to drop off a cliff soon? I don't see it. Sure, we have some important Vets sure to move on or decline within the next two years (Rolen, Phillips, Hernandez, Arroyo) but actually we are incredibly young in baseball terms. Only six members of our 40(currently 38) man roster will be 30 years old by the start of next season. 21 won't even be 27 yet. Compared to other contending teams we are children.

I am certain that if we had the financial resources the Phillies, Yankees or other teams had, we would have a very different roster, but we don't. Our only resource to spend is young talent. Unlike free agent dollars to a major market team, this is a far more precious resource in that it very difficult to replace.

I am a Bengals fan who has lived through the boom and bust world. I would prefer to competitive year in and year out and making the playoffs most years than having a 1990 championship followed by a lost two decades and then maybe another championship in 2011 or 2012 followed by another lost decade because we sacrificed our future.

Walt built St Louis into a team that would compete every year. I believe he can achieve the same thing in Cincinnati despite our smaller market.

So, in response to the Phillies Cliff Lee comment, I will quote another post from ORG:

"Erik Bedard for Joey Votto"

If only we had made that trade in order to be more competitive right away!!!!!!

Captain13
12-21-2010, 04:01 PM
I like what one person in the ORG said in response to another poster whose stance was "The Reds won 91 Games in 2010 and I think standing pat is the best move Walt could make"

The Response:

"The Phillies won 97 games and went out and signed Cliff Lee."

They also lost Jason Werth and have (nearly) unlimited resources. The Reds were better than expected last year, and will improve this year.

Quatitos
12-21-2010, 04:35 PM
I like what one person in the ORG said in response to another poster whose stance was "The Reds won 91 Games in 2010 and I think standing pat is the best move Walt could make"

The Response:

"The Phillies won 97 games and went out and signed Cliff Lee."

The Phillies also have double the payroll of the Reds now with that Cliff Lee signing and are tied into paying him $20+ million for the next 6 years so they better hope he ages well. In my opinon the Phillies took a huge risk signing the guy for so long (which takes him to what, 38?)

I actually prefer the Reds not being tied up with a contract like that. Although not as good, remember all of the complaining during the tail end of Aaron Harang's contract? They better hope that Lee doesn't go down the same road, atleast not for 4 or 5 years.

And the Phillies and Reds are in completely different situations. The Phillies are an aging team with most players on the wrong side of 30 who's time to win is running out. They don't really have any good young players besides Cole Hamels. On the other hand the reds have players like Jay Bruce, Joey Votto, Johnny Cueto, Aroldis Chapman, and others.

So the Reds have a lot of players on the rise where as the Phillies have players on the decline so they need to capitalize on them now.

brm7675
12-21-2010, 06:51 PM
I like what one person in the ORG said in response to another poster whose stance was "The Reds won 91 Games in 2010 and I think standing pat is the best move Walt could make"

The Response:

"The Phillies won 97 games and went out and signed Cliff Lee."

I think it is unfair to compare the Phillies to the Reds. If the Reds had the revenue sources that the Phils had, then i bet they would have been in those discussions. you have to remember Walt has limited funds.

Hondo
12-21-2010, 09:43 PM
First off. The situation is about standing pat or not standing pat. Improving the ballclub or not improving it.

You can make it all about payrolls. The point is about Winning 91 Games & Winning 97 Games.

1 team "improves", 1 team does "Nothing"

2nd Point. Votto for Bedard... #1 you would not have had to give up Votto. He went for Minor Leaguers and a Closer named George Sherril... One Minor Leaguer ended up being adam jones. Not 1 day in the Majors. At tha point, Votto had batted .321 in his call up and was the First Baseman from then on out, after Hattenberg.

It would not have taken Votto for Bedard.

I am not going to Debate this thread anymore.

The point is Improving the Club or Not Improving the Club. Standing pat because you won 91 games or improving it because you want to win 92+

But if you want to Debate the payrolls of the Phillies and the Reds, by all means continue...

Oh and Philly signed Cliff Lee and now will move Joe Blanton.

The Reds could have traded for Greinke or Reyes and then went on the rest of the off season looking to Deal Cordero.

For those who will say, "Nobody will trade for Cordero"

Angels, White Sox, & Detroit all in search of a "Closer"

Brisco
12-22-2010, 12:01 AM
First off. The situation is about standing pat or not standing pat. Improving the ballclub or not improving it.

You can make it all about payrolls. The point is about Winning 91 Games & Winning 97 Games.

1 team "improves", 1 team does "Nothing"

2nd Point. Votto for Bedard... #1 you would not have had to give up Votto. He went for Minor Leaguers and a Closer named George Sherril... One Minor Leaguer ended up being adam jones. Not 1 day in the Majors. At tha point, Votto had batted .321 in his call up and was the First Baseman from then on out, after Hattenberg.

It would not have taken Votto for Bedard.

I am not going to Debate this thread anymore.

The point is Improving the Club or Not Improving the Club. Standing pat because you won 91 games or improving it because you want to win 92+

But if you want to Debate the payrolls of the Phillies and the Reds, by all means continue...

Oh and Philly signed Cliff Lee and now will move Joe Blanton.

The Reds could have traded for Greinke or Reyes and then went on the rest of the off season looking to Deal Cordero.

For those who will say, "Nobody will trade for Cordero"

Angels, White Sox, & Detroit all in search of a "Closer"

First a strawman and now a false dilema....

Improve or not improve... quite a choice there.

All those who oppose the Reds improving, raise your hands.

Anyone?.... Bueller?... Beulller?

Cards fans, put your hands back down, you dont get a vote.

We all want the Reds to improve, we just view the idea of overpaying in the short term differently.

The Phillies are not a fair budget comparison to the Reds and it is simply fantasy foolishness to believe that we are. They have money to spend that we dont and all the wishing in the world will not change that. In fact, I believe that our markets are so different that the Reds could win the next two world series and not bring in as much gross profits as the Phillies in those same two years. Last year we make one of the most dramatic imporvements in club history and yet home attendance only increased 310k. Ohio has been far more dramatically hit by the recession than Northeast. It's possible we could bring back the Big Red Machine in their prime and not sell 3 million home tickets in the current Ohio economy.

I did not suggest trading Votto for Bedard, just pointing out that it was one of the options bandied about. Personally, you would have traded "Ten Johnny Cueto's for two Bedards."

I have said nothing about Cordero, but I will respond to that... have you seen ANY rumors about teams interested in Cordero? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we have a replacement in Massett or Chapman and could really be helped by dumping his salary, so why aren't there loads of articles and fan posts of teams itching to come and take Cordero off our hands? According to Jon Heyman, we had officially put Cordero on the market back on November 17th and were willing to kick in money if there were any takers. (This was verified by USA Today)

I did a yahoo search and of the first 100 links for francisco cordero trade, the only rumors that mentioned Cordero were that he was available.. never even a whisper of other teams being interested. Of fan posts, the only fans interested in a Cordero trade were, you guessed it, Reds fans.

Maybe the Angels, White Sox, & Detroit all in search of a "Closer" ... but apparently the closer they want is not Cordero.

Quatitos
12-22-2010, 12:57 AM
First off. The situation is about standing pat or not standing pat. Improving the ballclub or not improving it.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. You can stand pat and still improve the team. Doing things such as the Bruce and Arroyo signings improve the club by securing pieces for the future. Hopefully we will see the return of Rhodes and a LTC for Votto. Both these things would be standing pat but I doubt anyone could say that they do not improve the club.



The Reds could have traded for Greinke or Reyes and then went on the rest of the off season looking to Deal Cordero.

Do you really think the Reds could have gotten Greinke? The Brewers added about $12-$14 million in payroll in that trade, and the Reds simply don't have the room for that.

As for Reyes, well he is still on the Mets so a trade could still happen so I don't know why you think that there is no possibility of that happening.

lonewolf371
12-22-2010, 02:19 AM
I like what one person in the ORG said in response to another poster whose stance was "The Reds won 91 Games in 2010 and I think standing pat is the best move Walt could make"

The Response:

"The Phillies won 97 games and went out and signed Cliff Lee."
They also lost Werth and will soon lose Blanton. With the Howard contract and now the Cliff Lee contract, just wait and see where the Phillies are in five years. They're going to have a lot of money tied up in bad players, and they don't have more money lying around like the Yankees to make up for it.

DirtyBaker
12-22-2010, 04:43 PM
The point is Improving the Club or Not Improving the Club. Standing pat because you won 91 games or improving it because you want to win 92+


It's not like we have an aging team that needs reloaded. We know the talent is here. Standing pat should yield 92+ wins because:

Stubbs, Bruce and Janish should improve.
Harang and O-Cab are gone and the players that replace them will likely have better production.
Volquez will be back and healthy.
Chapman may be a starter, adding Bailey/Volquez to the bullpen.
We have some great prospects in the minors who will be a year older and could be used for depth or for a big trade amid a pennant race.

Captain13
12-22-2010, 05:26 PM
It's not like we have an aging team that needs reloaded. We know the talent is here. Standing pat should yield 92+ wins because:

Stubbs, Bruce and Janish should improve.
Harang and O-Cab are gone and the players that replace them will likely have better production.
Volquez will be back and healthy.
Chapman may be a starter, adding Bailey/Volquez to the bullpen.
We have some great prospects in the minors who will be a year older and could be used for depth or for a big trade amid a pennant race.

:thumbup: You took the words right out of my mouth :thumbup:

Hondo
12-22-2010, 05:53 PM
You guys are all correct.

I am wrong.

Debate yourselves.

Hondo
12-22-2010, 05:54 PM
It's not like we have an aging team that needs reloaded. We know the talent is here. Standing pat should yield 92+ wins because:

Stubbs, Bruce and Janish should improve.
Harang and O-Cab are gone and the players that replace them will likely have better production.
Volquez will be back and healthy.
Chapman may be a starter, adding Bailey/Volquez to the bullpen.
We have some great prospects in the minors who will be a year older and could be used for depth or for a big trade amid a pennant race.

Really? Instead of having them for an entire season, just 2 months? Great idea there...

Hondo
12-22-2010, 05:55 PM
:thumbup: You took the words right out of my mouth :thumbup:

So your in favor of trading the prospects "during" the season...

Gotcha!

defender
12-22-2010, 06:15 PM
It seems like there are at least 3 arguments in this thread.

Do the Reds need to improve? I think yes, but it is a whole different threads worth of discussion.

Does it hurt the Reds and/or fans, that Walt will only improve the team if the cost is reasonable? The OP says: no, it is the best long run strategy. I will buy into that.

Are the Reds at max budget, and can not improve the team? I think it is a factor. Zack Grienke at 13.5 mil per year + prospects is not an option. I believe there is some room in the budget.

Brisco
12-22-2010, 06:57 PM
So your in favor of trading the prospects "during" the season...

Gotcha!

C'mon guy... quit trying to switch the discussion to a straw man fallacy. No one has said don't improve the team... no one has said we can't trade the prospects... no one has said we should pass up a deal that helps the team.

It is only a question of urgency. If you need something NOW you pay top dollar. That may help you for a season or two, but it will definitly cost the fanchise long term. Each year each GM has to analyze if this is the year to mortgage the future for the present. Some of us believe that the team is not in an immediate need situation.

As I said in the original post on this thread, I am comfortable in Walt waiting for the market to come to him. Walt has stated he kicked the tires on the players that were out there, and the SS and LF / leadoff players that were available were overpriced. I am fine with that. I am fine with him waiting until he feels he is getting the right deal to make a trade.

The Cast/Jock plan from the beginning has been a slow build to field a consistent contender and not a one or two year wonder. I like that plan and think we should stick with it rather than change midstream just because we had some success a bit earlier than expected.

Hondo
12-22-2010, 09:38 PM
C'mon guy... quit trying to switch the discussion to a straw man fallacy. No one has said don't improve the team... no one has said we can't trade the prospects... no one has said we should pass up a deal that helps the team.

It is only a question of urgency. If you need something NOW you pay top dollar. That may help you for a season or two, but it will definitly cost the fanchise long term. Each year each GM has to analyze if this is the year to mortgage the future for the present. Some of us believe that the team is not in an immediate need situation.

As I said in the original post on this thread, I am comfortable in Walt waiting for the market to come to him. Walt has stated he kicked the tires on the players that were out there, and the SS and LF / leadoff players that were available were overpriced. I am fine with that. I am fine with him waiting until he feels he is getting the right deal to make a trade.

The Cast/Jock plan from the beginning has been a slow build to field a consistent contender and not a one or two year wonder. I like that plan and think we should stick with it rather than change midstream just because we had some success a bit earlier than expected.

My whole thing is that Greinke was available. I would not want Walt to trade for a Shawn Marcum or another 2nd tier pitcher.

IMO when there is a young (27), one year removed from a Cy Young, that is a player to add to the pieces already in place.

I would expect him to move toward Felix Hernandez in the same manner if he were to become available or for Tim Lincecum for that matter.

Only in those situations where young ACE material is available...

Other situation is Short Stop. I would rather have Janish than have Walt trade for Bartlet or Scutero... Only if Reyes was available or a Hanley Ramirez was available...

I dont want Walt to make a move for the sake of making a move, example the Cardinals off season...

webbbj
12-23-2010, 01:39 AM
as been said before greinke was available but doesnt fit our budget. a trade w/ the mets for reyes or beltran could be possible if it involved cordero and the reds sweetening the deal w/ prospects. other than that i doubt there are any possiblities for improvement that dont involve increasing payroll.

theres no problem waiting until as long as the trade deadline, maybe the player we need does not come available until that time adn we can get him at a reasonable price.

Hondo
12-23-2010, 02:22 PM
as been said before greinke was available but doesnt fit our budget. a trade w/ the mets for reyes or beltran could be possible if it involved cordero and the reds sweetening the deal w/ prospects. other than that i doubt there are any possiblities for improvement that dont involve increasing payroll.

theres no problem waiting until as long as the trade deadline, maybe the player we need does not come available until that time adn we can get him at a reasonable price.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5947435

QUOTE

MILWAUKEE -- Zack Greinke already is paying off for the Milwaukee Brewers.

Team officials say they've added more than 1,500 new season-ticket holders since Sunday's trade with the Kansas City Royals, more than tripling the 400 new account holders the team had added in the first few months of the offseason.

Rick Schlesinger, the Brewers' executive vice president of business operations, says response from fans has exceeded "even our most optimistic expectations." He says the trade also has helped the team's sponsorship and retail sales.

QUOTE

Brisco
12-23-2010, 07:22 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5947435

QUOTE

MILWAUKEE -- Zack Greinke already is paying off for the Milwaukee Brewers.

Team officials say they've added more than 1,500 new season-ticket holders since Sunday's trade with the Kansas City Royals, more than tripling the 400 new account holders the team had added in the first few months of the offseason.

Rick Schlesinger, the Brewers' executive vice president of business operations, says response from fans has exceeded "even our most optimistic expectations." He says the trade also has helped the team's sponsorship and retail sales.

QUOTE

Apples and Oranges... Cincinnati just won the division, so Reds fair weather fans and sponsors are already largely in support of the team. The Brewers were in a sales slump after disappointing last year and this brought some of those fans and sponsors back. As I noted above, the Reds are currently crippled by the Rust Belt economy which is significantly behind the rest of the nation in its recovery. We would have brought in Greinke and experienced only a nominal, if any, bump in sales.

Hondo
12-23-2010, 07:33 PM
Apples and Oranges... Cincinnati just won the division, so Reds fair weather fans and sponsors are already largely in support of the team. The Brewers were in a sales slump after disappointing last year and this brought some of those fans and sponsors back. As I noted above, the Reds are currently crippled by the Rust Belt economy which is significantly behind the rest of the nation in its recovery. We would have brought in Greinke and experienced only a nominal, if any, bump in sales.

Oh my... What a lame response...

Quatitos
12-23-2010, 07:57 PM
Oh my... What a lame response...

If it is such a lame response, why don't you actually try and prove that the same bump in ticket sales would have actually happened if the Reds had signed him? Brisco is completely right by saying the Reds and Brewers are in different situations and no person, who is actually honest and uses their head, can say that the exact same thing would have happened if the Reds had somehow landed Greinke.

Hondo
12-23-2010, 08:46 PM
If it is such a lame response, why don't you actually try and prove that the same bump in ticket sales would have actually happened if the Reds had signed him? Brisco is completely right by saying the Reds and Brewers are in different situations and no person, who is actually honest and uses their head, can say that the exact same thing would have happened if the Reds had somehow landed Greinke.

How about this:

Cardinals 94,220,500
Astros 92,605,500
Brewers 90,408,000
Reds 76,151,500
Pirates 39,068,000

Those were the 2010 Payrolls.

How about you guys maybe start holding the FO accountable for being competetive with the payroll as the other teams... Do not mention the Pirates. We all know they are using the Luxury Tax Income to make money.

And Dont say, well the Reds made the playoffs and the Cards, Astros, and Cards didnt...

I am talking about the fact that the Reds should have been able to add a Salary of Greinke or a Reyes to Improve the team.

Quit using the Reds "budget" as an excuse... They make money with more ticket sales and playoff revenue... TV Money etc...

Brisco
12-23-2010, 10:49 PM
How about this:

Cardinals 94,220,500
Astros 92,605,500
Brewers 90,408,000
Reds 76,151,500
Pirates 39,068,000

Those were the 2010 Payrolls.

How about you guys maybe start holding the FO accountable for being competetive with the payroll as the other teams... Do not mention the Pirates. We all know they are using the Luxury Tax Income to make money.

And Dont say, well the Reds made the playoffs and the Cards, Astros, and Cards didnt...

I am talking about the fact that the Reds should have been able to add a Salary of Greinke or a Reyes to Improve the team.

Quit using the Reds "budget" as an excuse... They make money with more ticket sales and playoff revenue... TV Money etc...

Well, the Reds increased an amazing 18% in ticket sales last year with their division championship team... and were still almost 8 hundred thousand below the eight games below .500, third place Brewers. (Who claim to be small market, but their gameday commuting radius population is the 6th largest in the country.)

Those same Brewers were down about 10% from their 08 and 09 attendance figures. Those new 1500 season ticket sales make up less than half the fan base they lost from 2009. In other words, the fans that had shown the capability to pay for tickets during the recession had stopped coming. The Brewers could alter the product and pull them back in. The Milwaukee economy has recovered far better than for the Reds... take a look at:

Wisconsin unemployment rate: 7.6, national rank of 17th best,
Ohio unemployment rate: 9.8, national rank is 39th

Also, the Reds are the one of the three smallest commuter population markets and yet they finished in the top 2/3rds of salaries (19th)

Probably more importantly, we no longer have to guess at MLB profit margins since the full finanacial documents of six teams for 09, 08 and/or 07 were released. http://deadspin.com/5619509/

For the most part, income for small market teams not counting ticket sales are pretty standard and average 65 million (large market teams also had larger local TV contracts). Operating expenses not counting player salaries average about 75 million.

Ok, so each team has about a 10 mill loss plus player salaries to cover with ticket revenues. The Pirates could not do that. In 08 they brought in 1,610,000 and made just over 32 million in ticket revenues. Their player salaries totalled 51 million. (That means that before revenue sharing, the team lost 29 million, but the 49 million from revenue sharing had them make a 20 million profit)

Assuming certain factors are standard between the Reds, Pirates and Brewers(ticket prices and local tv revenues, although the Reds are actually last in both categories) it means that the Brewers had 14 million more to spend than the Reds last year based on attendance figures.

The figure you provided shows they spent 14 million more than the Reds in payroll. Coincidence? What is more probative is that the Brewers made about 45 million more than the Reds in 08-09 combined, but only spent about 15 million more in payroll those two years.


The bottom line is that the Castellini is a huge and self-described life-long Reds fan. Each year they are stretching every dollar as far as possible, but they are not going to operate at a loss... that is not going to build the long term health of the team.

We have heard that the final Reds payroll is projected to increase by 4 million to 80 million for 2011 (which coincidentally was the Brewers payroll in 08 and 09). That's about the same amount of profit we can estimate was made last year by the 18% increase in ticket sales.

That sure sounds like Cast is putting ever dollar they have in play. He is a proven successful businessman... if he thought he could bring in Lee and make back the lost revenue, I am sure he would have. On Greinke, I am sure it was a combination of both the cost in dollars,%2

Quatitos
12-23-2010, 11:40 PM
Well, the Reds increased an amazing 18% in ticket sales last year with their division championship team... and were still almost 8 hundred thousand below the eight games below .500, third place Brewers. (Who claim to be small market, but their gameday commuting radius population is the 6th largest in the country.)

...
...
...


Its fun to be a Reds fan again.

Nice post Brisco, doing some actual research and analysis :)

Eric the Red
12-23-2010, 11:44 PM
Great post Brisco and excellent topic.

Hondo
12-24-2010, 03:05 PM
Well, the Reds increased an amazing 18% in ticket sales last year with their division championship team... and were still almost 8 hundred thousand below the eight games below .500, third place Brewers. (Who claim to be small market, but their gameday commuting radius population is the 6th largest in the country.)

Those same Brewers were down about 10% from their 08 and 09 attendance figures. Those new 1500 season ticket sales make up less than half the fan base they lost from 2009. In other words, the fans that had shown the capability to pay for tickets during the recession had stopped coming. The Brewers could alter the product and pull them back in. The Milwaukee economy has recovered far better than for the Reds... take a look at:

Wisconsin unemployment rate: 7.6, national rank of 17th best,
Ohio unemployment rate: 9.8, national rank is 39th

Also, the Reds are the one of the three smallest commuter population markets and yet they finished in the top 2/3rds of salaries (19th)

Probably more importantly, we no longer have to guess at MLB profit margins since the full finanacial documents of six teams for 09, 08 and/or 07 were released. http://deadspin.com/5619509/

For the most part, income for small market teams not counting ticket sales are pretty standard and average 65 million (large market teams also had larger local TV contracts). Operating expenses not counting player salaries average about 75 million.

Ok, so each team has about a 10 mill loss plus player salaries to cover with ticket revenues. The Pirates could not do that. In 08 they brought in 1,610,000 and made just over 32 million in ticket revenues. Their player salaries totalled 51 million. (That means that before revenue sharing, the team lost 29 million, but the 49 million from revenue sharing had them make a 20 million profit)

Assuming certain factors are standard between the Reds, Pirates and Brewers(ticket prices and local tv revenues, although the Reds are actually last in both categories) it means that the Brewers had 14 million more to spend than the Reds last year based on attendance figures.

The figure you provided shows they spent 14 million more than the Reds in payroll. Coincidence? What is more probative is that the Brewers made about 45 million more than the Reds in 08-09 combined, but only spent about 15 million more in payroll those two years.


The bottom line is that the Castellini is a huge and self-described life-long Reds fan. Each year they are stretching every dollar as far as possible, but they are not going to operate at a loss... that is not going to build the long term health of the team.

We have heard that the final Reds payroll is projected to increase by 4 million to 80 million for 2011 (which coincidentally was the Brewers payroll in 08 and 09). That's about the same amount of profit we can estimate was made last year by the 18% increase in ticket sales.

That sure sounds like Cast is putting ever dollar they have in play. He is a proven successful businessman... if he thought he could bring in Lee and make back the lost revenue, I am sure he would have. On Greinke, I am sure it was a combination of both the cost in dollars,%2


Milwaukee Brewers attendance 2010 3,037,451

Cincinnati Reds attendance 2010 2,571,627


Maybe there is the problem right there.

But... If they were ready to add Lee in 2010? Because his Salary wasnt that much of an issue?

Why wouldnt they add another piece in 2011?

Hondo
12-24-2010, 03:09 PM
Nice post Brisco, doing some actual research and analysis :)

Yeah I am picking up what you are putting down...

:rolleyes: