PDA

View Full Version : Texas Rangers sign Arthur Rhodes



RedLegSuperStar
12-23-2010, 06:39 PM
Per Jon Heyman via Twitter

RedLegSuperStar
12-23-2010, 06:49 PM
Well now it seems as if the Rangers have signed Rhodes

edabbs44
12-23-2010, 07:20 PM
Did a great job in Cincy, but as the saying goes it is better to be a year early than a year late.

Joseph
12-23-2010, 07:22 PM
Probably a good thing for us. Rhodes was great for us, but we don't need to spend a ton of money on a set up guy. I'd like to see Chapman in that role next season really.

1990REDS
12-23-2010, 07:23 PM
I wish all the best for Arthur. Had a great season for us but with a guy that age and with the injury problems you have to figure his expiration date is getting close. I guess i would rather that happen on someone elses payroll.

Ron Madden
12-23-2010, 07:28 PM
http://twitter.com/MLBFanHouse/status/18072721690730496

Best wishes to Arthur Rhodes, I wish him well.

Ron Madden
12-23-2010, 07:47 PM
Check this out. It's a 1 year deal with an option for a 2nd year. the deal could be for $8MM if the option vests.

http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/18086931548086272

Jpup
12-23-2010, 08:04 PM
Check this out.

http://twitter.com/SI_JonHeyman/status/18086931548086272

It's probably about a 3 million dollar contract w/ escalators and a 2nd year option.

Ron Madden
12-23-2010, 08:21 PM
From Mark Sheldon @ Reds.com.

http://reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101223&content_id=16365998&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Kc61
12-23-2010, 08:26 PM
Tremendous off-season so far for the Reds.

I don't know how to indicate sarcasm, which is very much intended.

Joseph
12-23-2010, 08:37 PM
Tremendous off-season so far for the Reds.

I don't know how to indicate sarcasm, which is very much intended.

You wanna pay a 40 something middle reliever 3-4MM a season for 2 years?

Not me. Thanks Arthur, have fun back home in Texas.

Bob Borkowski
12-23-2010, 08:45 PM
You wanna pay a 40 something middle reliever 3-4MM a season for 2 years?

Not me. Thanks Arthur, have fun back home in Texas.

I'm with you, Joseph.

GADawg
12-23-2010, 08:46 PM
I'm still hopeful that with the "stuff" Bray has that he'll begin to realize his potential and be that big lefty that every team needs

Will M
12-23-2010, 08:48 PM
I realize that the 2nd year only vests under certain conditions but Arthur for 2years/$8M is just too much. even if he pitches well i think the team has a better use for $4m/year than using it for a setup reliever.
i strongly suspect Chapman is in the pen for 2011. we also have other LH relievers on the roster. i actually have high hopes for Bray. even Dontrelle may pan out as a LOOGY.

hebroncougar
12-23-2010, 08:49 PM
Good example of a team knowing when to get out. The Reds didn't need to tie up this much money into Rhodes, when they have Chapman, and Bray waiting. Time for them to follow Arthur's lead, and step up.

OnBaseMachine
12-23-2010, 09:01 PM
Good luck, Arthur. I enjoyed watching you pitch for the Reds.

Ghosts of 1990
12-23-2010, 09:24 PM
I wish we didn't have to justify every move. This was a big loss. This was a guy who should have been back. To me, if we are worse than last year; this is a big reason why. He got so many big outs for us last year. I feared losing Rhodes the most. I don't see who is going to replace him to be honest.

PuffyPig
12-23-2010, 09:29 PM
I wish we didn't have to justify every move. This was a big loss. This was a guy who should have been back. To me, if we are worse than last year; this is a big reason why. He got so many big outs for us last year. I feared losing Rhodes the most. I don't see who is going to replace him to be honest.

I realize that Chapman guy is only about half his age and throws about 10 MPH faster, but he might have a chance......

Kc61
12-23-2010, 10:26 PM
I realize that Chapman guy is only about half his age and throws about 10 MPH faster, but he might have a chance......

Velocity and youth do not necessarily equate to getting outs consistently. We're all hopeful for Chapman, but he'll have to really step up to have a year like Rhodes did in 2010. Reds just lost an all-star reliever, not easily replaceable.

Meanwhile, when the Reds were in first grade, they certainly showed up for the subtraction lesson.

But did they learn addition?

Caveat Emperor
12-23-2010, 10:32 PM
Velocity and youth do not necessarily equate to getting outs consistently. We're all hopeful for Chapman, but he'll have to really step up to have a year like Rhodes did in 2010. Reds just lost an all-star reliever, not easily replaceable.

Meanwhile, when the Reds were in first grade, they certainly showed up for the subtraction lesson.

But did they learn addition?

They prefer to talk about when they were in college and learned about maturation of assets.

Your act is getting tired. We get that you think the team isn't moving quickly enough or signing enough / trading for enough star players to appease you. It doesn't need to be brought into every thread.

Kc61
12-23-2010, 10:48 PM
They prefer to talk about when they were in college and learned about maturation of assets.

Your act is getting tired. We get that you think the team isn't moving quickly enough or signing enough / trading for enough star players to appease you. It doesn't need to be brought into every thread.

I don't want to be appeased. I want to be rewarded for many years of patience as a fan of this team. I want a top contender.

As for my "act" (an unnecessary slur), it seems fitting to mention the absence of positive acquisitions in a thread about the loss of a very good performer. This off-season is a net negative so far. Hopefully, that's about to turn around.

FWIW, I wouldn't have overpaid Rhodes because I was disturbed by his injury status late last season. His performance level certainly was diminished late in the season.

I just hope Chapman or Bray can show the kind of consistency to replace Rhodes. Chapman is an exciting performer but has to show consistency. Actually, at the end of last year, I was very impressed with Bill Bray who was consistently good - his control seemed much improved in his late season outings.

Ron Madden
12-23-2010, 11:10 PM
http://reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101223&content_id=16365998&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin

savafan
12-23-2010, 11:22 PM
http://reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101223&content_id=16365998&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin

I'm penning my hopes on Daniel Ray Herrera.

westofyou
12-23-2010, 11:48 PM
As good as he was, as much as an AS game might mean at contract time let's remember that Arthur Rhodes faced 217 batters, or .035% of the teams total.

PuffyPig
12-23-2010, 11:48 PM
Velocity and youth do not necessarily equate to getting outs consistently. We're all hopeful for Chapman, but he'll have to really step up to have a year like Rhodes did in 2010. Reds just lost an all-star reliever, not easily replaceable.

Meanwhile, when the Reds were in first grade, they certainly showed up for the subtraction lesson.

But did they learn addition?

Rhodes xFIP in 2009-2010 was a shade under 4.

He was injured most of last year and at his age is certainly a risk.

I'd rather Chapman or Bray (and we have both) at this stage.

Ron Madden
12-23-2010, 11:53 PM
As good as he was, as much as an AS game might mean at contract time let's remember that Arthur Rhodes faced 217 batters, or .035% of the teams total.

Yep. I'm glad the Reds didn't spend as much as Texas did to sign Rhodes especially at his age.

Patrick Bateman
12-24-2010, 12:08 AM
Velocity and youth do not necessarily equate to getting outs consistently. We're all hopeful for Chapman, but he'll have to really step up to have a year like Rhodes did in 2010. Reds just lost an all-star reliever, not easily replaceable.

Meanwhile, when the Reds were in first grade, they certainly showed up for the subtraction lesson.

But did they learn addition?

Did you even watch Chapman last year?
It's not like he scuffled.

Griffey012
12-24-2010, 12:29 AM
We can always trade for Rhodes at the deadline if need be and his option is expected to vest.

Arthur is one of the most professional classy guys in the bigs, and I loved having him in a Reds uni. Needless to say I am glad he is not going to remain in a Reds uni, simply because of the price tag. Smart move Walt.

RedLegSuperStar
12-24-2010, 12:46 AM
I didn't want to resign him in the first place.. Was great for us.. But 41 who's foot ended his season doesn't scream 2-4 million

Blitz Dorsey
12-24-2010, 12:59 AM
This guy was lights-out good ... I wanted him back. He seems to be one of those guys that will pitch until he's 45 or 46. I know he's got the foot problem, but it has all offseason to heal. His arm is in great shape and we're going to severely miss him this coming season. Not kind of miss him, severely miss him.

Was he worth every penny he got from the Rangers? Who knows. But I wanted him back and this hurts our chances at repeating as Central champs.

pedro
12-24-2010, 01:00 AM
I don't want to be appeased. I want to be rewarded for many years of patience as a fan of this team. I want a top contender.

As for my "act" (an unnecessary slur), it seems fitting to mention the absence of positive acquisitions in a thread about the loss of a very good performer. This off-season is a net negative so far. Hopefully, that's about to turn around.

FWIW, I wouldn't have overpaid Rhodes because I was disturbed by his injury status late last season. His performance level certainly was diminished late in the season.

I just hope Chapman or Bray can show the kind of consistency to replace Rhodes. Chapman is an exciting performer but has to show consistency. Actually, at the end of last year, I was very impressed with Bill Bray who was consistently good - his control seemed much improved in his late season outings.

Then why don't you wait until spring training to judge the offseason? It seems a little over the top to be continually bashing the Reds for their off season activities when the season doesn't start for almost 4 more months.

As for Rhodes I enjoyed his run for the Reds but there is no way a team with the Reds budget should give that much money to a 40 year old set up guy.

REDREAD
12-24-2010, 01:59 AM
I'll miss Rhodes, but we can't pay him 4 million/year.

This is exactly why the Reds did not offer him arbitration.

Hopefully, the money saved will go towards filling LF or SS.

corkedbat
12-24-2010, 03:38 AM
I'm a huge fan of Arthur's and I've been all for bringing him back, but 2yrs/$8M? Naw baby naw.

I guess you could hope that he doesn't vest, but that would probably mean he sucked (or was injured).

buckeyenut
12-24-2010, 08:29 AM
There is no way Rhodes repeats the year he had last year. It was the best of his career.

We will be able to get close to the same production as what we might have gotten from Rhodes from guys on the roster. This was a smart choice, even if it was a hard choice.

But I am glad Arthur got paid. Well deserved for a great guy.

redsmetz
12-24-2010, 09:33 AM
I realize that the 2nd year only vests under certain conditions but Arthur for 2years/$8M is just too much. even if he pitches well i think the team has a better use for $4m/year than using it for a setup reliever.
i strongly suspect Chapman is in the pen for 2011. we also have other LH relievers on the roster. i actually have high hopes for Bray. even Dontrelle may pan out as a LOOGY.

This is my take on it too and that's not to knock the Rangers for the signing. This may well fit within their budget and it may well fill a critical need. But we have other, less costly options that can work well. And I'm not concerned whether the Rangers are risking that Rhodes will not implode. There is a history of some relievers pitching well into their 40's with some success.

Leaving Chapman in the pen for this year works as well. It eliminates one of the numbers in the rotation race and it allows us to bring him along with the ultimate goal of him being a starter.

I'm not going to lose any sleep losing out on Rhodes especially at that price. Well done, Arthur, and good luck finishing out your career. When we face you in the Series, fall apart though.

Tony Cloninger
12-24-2010, 12:10 PM
I would rather have Rhodes than Cairo but not at that price. Some teams can afford to overspend when they were outbid by the biggest FA out there....or undercut.

I was hoping they would sign a better bench guy than cairo....only beacuse Cairo exhausted his usage of magic veteran leadership intangibles dust.

Strikes Out Looking
12-24-2010, 02:33 PM
The Rangers did the Reds a favor. I like Arthur, but not at that price or length of time.

savafan
12-24-2010, 02:46 PM
I love how the Reds have this board convinced that they can't afford to pay market value for good players.

westofyou
12-24-2010, 02:53 PM
I love how the Reds have this board convinced that they can't afford to pay market value for good players.

I love how a 41 year old lefty reliever who 217 batters faced and a bad foot actually got someone to pay him that sort of jack.

It's as if Rheal Cormier never existed.

backbencher
12-24-2010, 02:55 PM
I love how the Reds have this board convinced that they can't afford to pay market value for good players.

Bizarre comment.

First, query whether it makes sense for any team to spend $8MM on a 40-year-old who can't close. The Red Sox have all the money in the world, a desparate bullpen situation and they didn't bite.

Second, it would seem to be simple economics that the Reds have to get more wins-per-dollar than almost every other team in baseball.

savafan
12-24-2010, 03:12 PM
Bizarre comment.

First, query whether it makes sense for any team to spend $8MM on a 40-year-old who can't close. The Red Sox have all the money in the world, a desparate bullpen situation and they didn't bite.

Second, it would seem to be simple economics that the Reds have to get more wins-per-dollar than almost every other team in baseball.

I'm not JUST referring to Sir Arthur, but the belief that this team can only pay guys on the cheap, hometown discounts or young players with out of this world projections.

I don't accept that the Reds can't compete with any team on salaries, it's all about choice. We're midwesternized and conservative enough to buy into the small market myth.

westofyou
12-24-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm not JUST referring to Sir Arthur, but the belief that this team can only pay guys on the cheap, hometown discounts or young players with out of this world projections.

I don't accept that the Reds can't compete with any team on salaries, it's all about choice. We're midwesternized and conservative enough to buy into the small market myth.

If you weren't just referring to this transaction I'd have to say you were certainly not clear on that fact. As for your assumption that the Reds can afford to pay on par with the big market clubs, I assume your choice is that the principals dig into their pockets to bridge the gap.

Because that's the only way they can, the bucket isn't as full in the Reds market as it is in others, that's a reality that is plain to see, the fans won't dig into their pocket as readily as other markets fans do, yet they all act like Veruca Salt when someone else's team drops a ridiculous contract down.

Double standards are funny.

kpresidente
12-24-2010, 03:50 PM
I'm not JUST referring to Sir Arthur, but the belief that this team can only pay guys on the cheap, hometown discounts or young players with out of this world projections.

I don't accept that the Reds can't compete with any team on salaries, it's all about choice. We're midwesternized and conservative enough to buy into the small market myth.

Yeah, we're just a bunch of gullible hicks...

Or maybe not...

http://itsabout.server304.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/chart1.jpg



Why don't you explain to me how the 22nd ranked team in gross revenues is going to compete for contracts with teams that bring in 50% more? You see, I'm just too much of a backwoods simpleton to get it. Can't do much more'n add and subtract, ya know. I need somebody like you to keep me straight, otherwise that crafty 'ol slicker Castellini's just going to keep playin' me for a fool.

Ron Madden
12-24-2010, 04:39 PM
JFay has a few ideas what the Reds could do with the money the Reds had planed to pay Arthur Rhodes. (I hope not)

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/12/24/rhodes-is-gone-now-what/

PuffyPig
12-24-2010, 04:51 PM
IFWIW, I wouldn't have overpaid Rhodes because I was disturbed by his injury status late last season. His performance level certainly was diminished late in the season.



You could have fooled me.

Your initial posts on this thread indicated extreme disapproval of the Reds failure to sign Phodes.

Now you agree with the Reds choice not to sign him???

*BaseClogger*
12-24-2010, 05:03 PM
Yeah, we're just a bunch of gullible hicks...

Or maybe not...

http://itsabout.server304.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/chart1.jpg



Why don't you explain to me how the 22nd ranked team in gross revenues is going to compete for contracts with teams that bring in 50% more? You see, I'm just too much of a backwoods simpleton to get it. Can't do much more'n add and subtract, ya know. I need somebody like you to keep me straight, otherwise that crafty 'ol slicker Castellini's just going to keep playin' me for a fool.

:laugh:

Great post!

Will M
12-24-2010, 08:06 PM
JFay has a few ideas what the Reds could do with the money the Reds had planed to pay Arthur Rhodes. (I hope not)

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/12/24/rhodes-is-gone-now-what/

there is a nugget in this article: "And as always, money is factor, i.e., the Reds don’t have much to spend, although they’ve got a bit more now that Rhodes is going elsewhere"

OK. it sounds a bit like the team was willing to give Rhodes $4M for 2011 but the 2nd year was the dealbreaker.

The team could slide Chapman into the role Rhodes had last year & still have 6legitimate starters. So its possible that Rhodes departing is a 'blessing in disguise' for 2011. Why? the team was 'at budget' when they had pencilled in $4M for Rhodes. Now maybe they can aim higher for the hole in LF since they will have more money to afford a better player.

savafan
12-24-2010, 09:22 PM
Yeah, we're just a bunch of gullible hicks...

Or maybe not...

http://itsabout.server304.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/chart1.jpg



Why don't you explain to me how the 22nd ranked team in gross revenues is going to compete for contracts with teams that bring in 50% more? You see, I'm just too much of a backwoods simpleton to get it. Can't do much more'n add and subtract, ya know. I need somebody like you to keep me straight, otherwise that crafty 'ol slicker Castellini's just going to keep playin' me for a fool.

Sure, if you believe the only way rich guys can fund a major league payroll is by using their team revenue.

westofyou
12-24-2010, 09:36 PM
Sure, if you believe the only way rich guys can fund a major league payroll is by using their team revenue.

Enlighten us on the process you think is attainable.

savafan
12-24-2010, 10:05 PM
Enlighten us on the process you think is attainable.

If you believe guys like Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones only spend team revenue on their respective teams, then there's no way I can convince you that millionaires can sometimes throw their own personal money into a team payroll. Owning a sports team isn't like other business ventures.

westofyou
12-24-2010, 10:10 PM
If you believe guys like Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones only spend team revenue on their respective teams, then there's no way I can convince you that millionaires can sometimes throw their own personal money into a team payroll. Owning a sports team isn't like other business ventures.

That's it?

NBA and NFL, two different sports, one town?

Kc61
12-25-2010, 12:29 AM
You could have fooled me.

Your initial posts on this thread indicated extreme disapproval of the Reds failure to sign Phodes.

Now you agree with the Reds choice not to sign him???

Sorry if you were fooled, I certainly didn't intend that.

My view is that it is unfortunate the Reds lost Rhodes, he was pretty terrific most of last year. I think it weakens the ballclub, even with replacements on hand.

However, the Reds couldn't overpay him because he is an injury risk.
So I understand the decision.

TRF
12-25-2010, 02:20 AM
If you believe guys like Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones only spend team revenue on their respective teams, then there's no way I can convince you that millionaires can sometimes throw their own personal money into a team payroll. Owning a sports team isn't like other business ventures.

Cuban might have at one point, Jones might have at one point. Both have salary cap limits and a HUGE market to pull fans from. Oh, and the Dallas Cowboys Brand is comparable to the NY Yankees brand worldwide. I don't think he has to invest a dime in to get talent these days.

Castellini has a smaller market, competing with teams with no salary cap. His disadvantage in acquiring FA's is exponentially higher.

Apples and flying monkeys.

PuffyPig
12-25-2010, 02:42 AM
Sorry if you were fooled, I certainly didn't intend that.

My view is that it is unfortunate the Reds lost Rhodes, he was pretty terrific most of last year. I think it weakens the ballclub, even with replacements on hand.

However, the Reds couldn't overpay him because he is an injury risk.
So I understand the decision.

If that was the sentiment you were intending to convey with you first two posts, it's no wonder we were fooled.

Becuase you clearly conveyed the opposite.

MartyFan
12-25-2010, 03:01 AM
I'll chime in to say that I am happy the Reds did not match or exceed the contract Rhodes got from Texas...IMHO, it would have been a huge mistake.

THAT SAID...could the Reds better spend their money than what they are geared to pay Brandon Phillips?

Could they get enough quality quantity that earns less to justify moving him?

In my perfect world this spring, José Arredondo, would emerge as a strong BP and potential closer candidate and the Reds would trade away Coco even if they picked up the majority of his salary, I get sick to my stomach every time I see him take the mound. He never scared anyone when he was in Milwaukee and when Special K signed him, I knew he wouldn't be the GM of the team for much longer.

Like I said, this is in MY PERFECT WORLD.:beerme:

kpresidente
12-25-2010, 02:04 PM
Sure, if you believe the only way rich guys can fund a major league payroll is by using their team revenue.

OK, but they're all rich. If it's no big deal for them to spend other money on the team, then they'd all do it and salaries would go up and nobody would get any advantage. So this is every fan's complaint. Not just us poor, dopey midwesterners.

Eric_the_Red
12-25-2010, 03:00 PM
So do we get to tell ALL rich guys how to spend their money, or just the sports owners?

Blitz Dorsey
12-25-2010, 07:20 PM
Could have taken the money used to re-sign Cairo (a player that can easily be replaced -- utility infielder with a bad stick ... although he did hit much better than his career average last year) and put that towards signing Rhodes (a player that cannot be easily replaced -- a lefty out of the pen who was so good last year he made the All-Star team even though he's not a closer; a rarity for relievers).

$4 mil/year is not much in today's baseball world ... some of you are acting as if this is 1992 or something. Hell, we are giving Cairo $1 million and Razor Ramon $3 mil, but we can't afford to pay Arthur $4 mil? Please. I would have taken Rhodes and not re-signed Cairo/Hernandez if that's what the decision came down to. Money would have equaled out that way.

TheNext44
12-25-2010, 07:39 PM
Could have taken the money used to re-sign Cairo (a player that can easily be replaced -- utility infielder with a bad stick ... although he did hit much better than his career average last year) and put that towards signing Rhodes (a player that cannot be easily replaced -- a lefty out of the pen who was so good last year he made the All-Star team even though he's not a closer; a rarity for relievers).

$4 mil/year is not much in today's baseball world ... some of you are acting as if this is 1992 or something. Hell, we are giving Cairo $1 million and Razor Ramon $3 mil, but we can't afford to pay Arthur $4 mil? Please. I would have taken Rhodes and not re-signed Cairo/Hernandez if that's what the decision came down to. Money would have equaled out that way.

I think the Red has the money in 2011 to sign Rhodes, but didn't want to offer a second year, which was why Rhodes signed with the Rangers, tbey were the only team to offer him two years.

westofyou
12-26-2010, 12:24 AM
Since 1969 here are the LH relievers over 40 sorted by the number of batters faced (often less than 1% of the batters faced by the team all year) Note the runs saved against average, not really worth a big investment, those are his comps, that's why he didn't get 8 million from the Reds.


LEFT HANDED PITCHERS
AGE >= 41
RSAA displayed only--not a sorting criteria
INNINGS PITCHED >= 15
AGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria
GAMES STARTED <= 1

BATTERS FACED YEAR BFP RSAA IP AGE GS
1 Woodie Fryman 1982 292 0 69.2 42 0
2 Terry Mulholland 2005 246 1 59 42 0
3 Jesse Orosco 1998 243 8 56.2 41 0
4 Jim Kaat 1981 229 1 53 42 1
5 John Franco 2004 207 -5 46 43 0
6 Rick Honeycutt 1996 190 7 47.1 42 0
7 Rick Honeycutt 1995 180 7 45.2 41 0
8 Woodie Fryman 1981 172 7 43 41 0
9 Jesse Orosco 2003 166 -14 33.2 46 0
10 Jim Kaat 1983 162 -1 34.2 44 0
11 John Franco 2003 148 6 34.1 42 0
12 Jesse Orosco 1999 144 -2 32 42 0
13 Dan Plesac 2003 141 5 33.1 41 0
14 Jesse Orosco 2002 119 2 27 45 0
15 John Franco 2005 77 -5 15 44 0
16 Jeff Fassero 2006 73 -6 15 43 1
17 Jesse Orosco 2001 69 0 16 44 0

Here's the RH's



RIGHT HANDED PITCHERS
AGE >= 41
RSAA displayed only--not a sorting criteria
INNINGS PITCHED >= 15
AGE displayed only--not a sorting criteria
GAMES STARTED <= 1

BATTERS FACED YEAR BFP RSAA IP AGE GS
1 Doug Jones 1999 430 13 104 42 0
2 Doug Jones 1998 372 -1 85.1 41 0
3 Hoyt Wilhelm 1970 357 8 82 47 0
4 Don McMahon 1971 356 -6 82 41 0
5 Kent Tekulve 1988 347 0 80 41 0
6 Doug Jones 2000 319 6 73.1 43 0
7 Hoyt Wilhelm 1969 303 12 78 46 0
8 Ron Reed 1984 294 11 73 41 0
9 Doug Brocail 2008 286 4 68.2 41 0
10 Roberto Hernandez 2006 285 10 63.2 41 0
T11 Don McMahon 1972 253 -2 63 42 0
T11 Roy Face 1969 253 -2 59 41 0
13 Dennis Eckersley 1996 251 6 60 41 0
14 Kent Tekulve 1989 235 -8 52 42 0
15 Jose Mesa 2007 229 -14 50.2 41 0
16 Mike Timlin 2008 227 -6 49.1 42 0
17 Mike Timlin 2007 222 9 55.1 41 0
18 Roberto Hernandez 2007 221 -9 46.1 42 0
19 Dennis Eckersley 1997 218 1 53 42 0
20 Goose Gossage 1993 213 -3 47.2 41 0
21 Trevor Hoffman 2009 210 13 54 41 0
22 Goose Gossage 1994 197 5 47.1 42 0
23 Dennis Eckersley 1998 171 0 39.2 43 0
24 Mike Morgan 2001 168 2 38 41 1
25 Mike Morgan 2002 156 -3 34 42 0
26 Larry Andersen 1994 147 -1 32.2 41 0
27 Don McMahon 1973 119 8 30 43 0
28 Hoyt Wilhelm 1972 112 -4 25 49 0
29 Doug Brocail 2009 84 -1 17.2 42 0
30 Hoyt Wilhelm 1971 72 2 20 48 0

savafan
12-26-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money, I'm just saying that they can.

REDREAD
12-28-2010, 03:34 PM
Enlighten us on the process you think is attainable.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but Sava has a point.
Carl Lindner and John Allen were the extremes.. they would sandbag payroll and collect revenue sharing. Guaranteed big profit.

Our market size is roughly the same as St Louis. Look where they rank on the chart. There's potential for growth. It has risk. Thankfully, it looks like Cast is trying to win and see if it brings in more revenue.

In the Reds' defense, we got the story about money being tight last year, yet they still managed to bring in Chapman, Gomes, and OCab.

I'm not giving up on the Reds yet. I think some more money will be spent.
They've extended Arroyo and Bruce, and appear to be making a serious effort with Cueto and Votto. That's such a huge change from the Lindner cheapskate era.

Maybe we will never have StL payroll, but at least the team is finally waking up and trying to win. Hopefully more ticket sales and better TV deals follow.

REDREAD
12-28-2010, 03:40 PM
$4 mil/year is not much in today's baseball world ... some of you are acting as if this is 1992 or something. Hell, we are giving Cairo $1 million and Razor Ramon $3 mil, but we can't afford to pay Arthur $4 mil? Please. I would have taken Rhodes and not re-signed Cairo/Hernandez if that's what the decision came down to. Money would have equaled out that way.

That's a good point, but I could see Texas anting up their offer to 5 million/year then. At some point, you just have to say that a given player is only worth so much.. otherwise you end up giving an albotross contract out.

For all the grief the Lincoln signing got (after Lincoln got hurt, very little at the time of the contract).. Can you imagine if the Reds gave Rhodes 8 million and he was ineffective or even just average? The board would explode.

This might sound crazy, but I'd rather have Ramon + Cairo than Rhodes. Ramon is only a one year commitment and hopefully we can squeeze another good year out of him.

westofyou
12-28-2010, 03:53 PM
Our market size is roughly the same as St Louis.


Greater St. Louis is the 15th largest in the United States (2009), with a population of 2,892,874, Cincinnati had a population of 2,155,130 for 24th.

But we've covered this before, get in a car in either city and drive any direction, in Cincinnati you'll hit more professional sports franchises and major college sports programs than you'll hit if you leave St. Louis.

The Reds have much more competition for the sports dollar than the Cardinals do.

REDREAD
12-28-2010, 05:21 PM
Greater St. Louis is the 15th largest in the United States (2009), with a population of 2,892,874, Cincinnati had a population of 2,155,130 for 24th.

But we've covered this before, get in a car in either city and drive any direction, in Cincinnati you'll hit more professional sports franchises and major college sports programs than you'll hit if you leave St. Louis.

The Reds have much more competition for the sports dollar than the Cardinals do.

Well, the Reds have Columbus, Louisville, and Lexington and other good sized cities close by. I know we've had this talk before, but the Reds need to pull regionally, just as St Louis does. Some other method of measurement (regional) said that both markets were roughly equal..( don't have the link)

The Indians have been in a tailspin, it's prime time to try to start winning some of the fickle regional fans. Right now, I don't think the Pirates and Indians are much competition. If the team consistently contends, they won't have to worry about minor league ball competition either.. From personal experience, I have stayed away from the GAB because it's not worth driving 2 hours each way to see Josh Fogg get lit up. If work allows, I am going to see a game or two in Cincy in 2011.. I have not been there since 2002, because the team has sucked since then (minor league ball was more entertaining).

I suspect I'm not the only regional person that lost interest in buying tickets thanks to Lindner. I'm impressed with how Cast has turned the team around. The team is now worth supporting.

westofyou
12-28-2010, 05:28 PM
Well, the Reds have Columbus, Louisville, and Lexington and other good sized cities close by. I know we've had this talk before, but the Reds need to pull regionally, just as St Louis does. Some other method of measurement (regional) said that both markets were roughly equal..( don't have the link)

The Indians have been in a tailspin, it's prime time to try to start winning some of the fickle regional fans. Right now, I don't think the Pirates and Indians are much competition. If the team consistently contends, they won't have to worry about minor league ball competition either.. From personal experience, I have stayed away from the GAB because it's not worth driving 2 hours each way to see Josh Fogg get lit up. If work allows, I am going to see a game or two in Cincy in 2011.. I have not been there since 2002, because the team has sucked since then (minor league ball was more entertaining).

I suspect I'm not the only regional person that lost interest in buying tickets thanks to Lindner. I'm impressed with how Cast has turned the team around. The team is now worth supporting.

It's not just baseball, it's NFL (4 teams within 4.5 hours of Cincinnati 5 if you count the Lions) NHL (3 teams) NBA (3 teams) then factor in OSU football, KY Basketball, there is just a lot of choices whereas 35 years ago there was not as many and the NHL/NBA wasn't a draw in the region.

I think it's a pipe dream to think that the Reds will draw as big as the Cardinals for 2 years much alone for a decade or more.

Mario-Rijo
12-28-2010, 08:18 PM
A final commentary on Arthur Rhodes brief but sterling Reds career (ok not quite that intent but whatever).

ESPN LINK (http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/14585/all-rhodes-lead-to-texas)


Rhodes was outstanding during his two-year stint with the Cincinnati Reds, posting an ERA of 2.41 over 108 1/3 innings. With the help of Baseball-Reference.com, we discovered that Rhodes is one of four pitchers with back-to-back seasons of an ERA+ of 170 or better, with at least 50 innings pitched at the age of 39 or older.

Hall of Famer Hoyt Wilhem had eight such seasons, including five in a row from 1964 to 1968. Roger Clemens did it in 2005 and 2006. Mariano Rivera matched Rhodes with a pair of remarkable seasons in 2009 and 2010.

Redsfan320
01-04-2011, 12:12 AM
Hal McCoy- Rhodes Will Be Missed for Many Reasons (http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2011/01/03/rhodes_will_be_missed_for_many.html). Great, great article.

320

TRF
01-04-2011, 12:01 PM
It's not just baseball, it's NFL (4 teams within 4.5 hours of Cincinnati 5 if you count the Lions) NHL (3 teams) NBA (3 teams) then factor in OSU football, KY Basketball, there is just a lot of choices whereas 35 years ago there was not as many and the NHL/NBA wasn't a draw in the region.

I think it's a pipe dream to think that the Reds will draw as big as the Cardinals for 2 years much alone for a decade or more.

This is why I maintain baseball could work in OKC. Dallas is about 6 hours away, and that is the closest city with a professional franchise. You do have college sports, but college football doesn't really compete with pro baseball. Plus Tulsa is 90 minutes away. About 600K for OKC, 400K for Tulsa, plus all the surrounding towns could take you to 1.5 mil or more. You'd draw into Kansas, the Texas Panhandle and maybe SW Missouri. They'd never lead the league in attendance, but it could work.

St. Louis is surrounded by nothing. The closest MLB franchise is KC. No NBA, STL does have two other sports franchises, but their seasons barely overlap baseball's Well, Hockey drags on forever.

Redsfan320
01-04-2011, 12:13 PM
This is why I maintain baseball could work in OKC. Dallas is about 6 hours away, and that is the closest city with a professional franchise. You do have college sports, but college football doesn't really compete with pro baseball. Plus Tulsa is 90 minutes away. About 600K for OKC, 400K for Tulsa, plus all the surrounding towns could take you to 1.5 mil or more. You'd draw into Kansas, the Texas Panhandle and maybe SW Missouri. They'd never lead the league in attendance, but it could work.

I haven't even read back far enough to know what the debate is here, but FTR OKC has the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA team, staring Kevin Durant.

320

westofyou
01-04-2011, 12:23 PM
This is why I maintain baseball could work in OKC. Dallas is about 6 hours away, and that is the closest city with a professional franchise. You do have college sports, but college football doesn't really compete with pro baseball. Plus Tulsa is 90 minutes away. About 600K for OKC, 400K for Tulsa, plus all the surrounding towns could take you to 1.5 mil or more. You'd draw into Kansas, the Texas Panhandle and maybe SW Missouri. They'd never lead the league in attendance, but it could work.

St. Louis is surrounded by nothing. The closest MLB franchise is KC. No NBA, STL does have two other sports franchises, but their seasons barely overlap baseball's Well, Hockey drags on forever.

Not now, baseball wouldn't target a market that small.

St Louis is surrounded by 2.8 million people, its market is the 18th largest market in the US.

If that is "nothing" than OKC is a berg.

Raisor
01-04-2011, 12:47 PM
This is why I maintain baseball could work in OKC. Dallas is about 6 hours away, and that is the closest city with a professional franchise.

OKC is only three hours from Dallas.

kaldaniels
05-08-2011, 10:53 PM
So far looking to be a nice decision by the FO to part ways with Sir Arthur. He is 1-2 with a 4.50 ERA for the Rangers. He took the loss tonight by allowing a HR to some geezer named Jeter.

I loved Rhodes while he was here, but you gotta know when to fold em'. So far, looking good with that move.

mattfeet
05-08-2011, 11:53 PM
So far looking to be a nice decision by the FO to part ways with Sir Arthur. He is 1-2 with a 4.50 ERA for the Rangers. He took the loss tonight by allowing a HR to some geezer named Jeter.

I loved Rhodes while he was here, but you gotta know when to fold em'. So far, looking good with that move. I was wondering how 'ole Sir Arthur was doing as of late. Thanks for the update.

-Matt

WebScorpion
05-12-2011, 11:13 AM
He had some tendinitis in his pitching wrist this spring. I wondering if it's still bothering him and he's trying to tough it out because of the big contract? I hope he gets straightened out...Arthur is a class act. :thumbup: