PDA

View Full Version : Joey Votto Signs a 3 Year Deal - 38M



Pages : [1] 2

RedLegSuperStar
01-16-2011, 10:37 AM
CBSSports via twitter.. Ctrent with the retweet

RedsManRick
01-16-2011, 10:42 AM
MLBtraderumors suggests in will be in the $37M range.

Joseph
01-16-2011, 10:43 AM
Would have liked to buy out at least one year of FA, but having the cost certainty is very important for a franchise like the Reds.

Good news overall.

RedLegSuperStar
01-16-2011, 10:43 AM
MLBtraderumors suggests in will be in the $37M range.

Hopefully their is option years too! I want him a Red for life

Razor Shines
01-16-2011, 11:01 AM
Hopefully their is option years too! I want him a Red for life

I have no evidence either way, but I don't see that happening. IMO if Joey had given the Reds an opportunity to lock him up for a few years after arb. then they would have.

I mean if the deal really is worth 37M it will probably be structured like: 9M, 13M, 15M then once he hits free agency he's gonna want at least 18M per. I don't see how the Reds could afford that.

Tom Servo
01-16-2011, 11:16 AM
excelsior!

mth123
01-16-2011, 11:20 AM
I have no evidence either way, but I don't see that happening. IMO if Joey had given the Reds an opportunity to lock him up for a few years after arb. then they would have.

I mean if the deal really is worth 37M it will probably be structured like: 9M, 13M, 15M then once he hits free agency he's gonna want at least 18M per. I don't see how the Reds could afford that.

I guess I don't see why the Reds couldn't afford $18 Million. If he's making $15 Million in the final season, the salary slot is already spoken for. Its just a matter of adding three million by passing on a mediocrity or two.

The problem is that he'll probably want $22 to $25 Million if he keeps hitting like the last 2 seasons.

Blitz Dorsey
01-16-2011, 11:27 AM
We had him locked up for the next three years via arbitration anyway. This really means nothing for fans. If we had bought one or two of his free agent years, that would have been a different story.

I actually like the move so the team doesn't have to mess with going to arbitration (or figuring out a number that works well for both sides the next few years) but it sounds a lot better than it actually is.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 11:28 AM
If its just a 3 year deal (with no options), I'm not sure what's in it for the Reds other than perhaps saving a bit of money.

If the Reds are going to guarantee Votto financial secuirty for life 3 years before they have too, Votto has to give up at least 1 FA year, whether by option or otherwise.

Otherwise, I'd just go year to year. It might cost me more, but I also don't have the huge risk of injury regression biting me in the a$$.

Tony Cloninger
01-16-2011, 11:38 AM
Does he just seem hell bent on wanting to go into FA? Does he not like this organization in some way or wants to go and play in Canada? Any ideas or random wild thoughts on this?

TheNext44
01-16-2011, 11:41 AM
If its just a 3 year deal (with no options), I'm not sure what's in it for the Reds other than perhaps saving a bit of money.

If the Reds are going to guarantee Votto financial secuirty for life 3 years before they have too, Votto has to give up at least 1 FA year, whether by option or otherwise.

Otherwise, I'd just go year to year. It might cost me more, but I also don't have the huge risk of injury regression biting me in the a$$.

I think the hope is that by treating Votto fairly now, it increases the chances of him signing an extension in a couple of years. it also helps attract free agents.

But I agree with you, I would have rather they went year to year simply because of the possibility of injury.

Brutus
01-16-2011, 11:42 AM
Does he just seem hell bent on wanting to go into FA? Does he not like this organization in some way or wants to go and play in Canada? Any ideas or random wild thoughts on this?

They (by they I mean Dusty, his teammates, his agent, him, etc.) keep saying he loves it in Cincinnati, but just isn't ready to commit staying the rest of his career, at least as of yet. I tend to think that's a sincere thought. I think we're all overanalyzing this. Even 3 years is a long stretch. That a guy isn't willing yet to commit the next 5-10 years of his life to one city probably is understandable.

TheNext44
01-16-2011, 11:45 AM
Does he just seem hell bent on wanting to go into FA? Does he not like this organization in some way or wants to go and play in Canada? Any ideas or random wild thoughts on this?

I don't think anyone, including Votto, really knows what he wants to do three years from now.

JaxRed
01-16-2011, 11:47 AM
A 3 year deal along those lines is pointless, and a bad move. Dumb deal. Puffy has it exactly right. We gained nothing.

Cedric
01-16-2011, 12:22 PM
A 3 year deal along those lines is pointless, and a bad move. Dumb deal. Puffy has it exactly right. We gained nothing.

You could be surprised by what good faith does.

I would most certainly pamper my best player and take the SLIGHT risk an injury blows up in your face.

Joey and his agent could easily return the favor in three years.

TRF
01-16-2011, 12:27 PM
A 3 year deal along those lines is pointless, and a bad move. Dumb deal. Puffy has it exactly right. We gained nothing.

I disagree. It's a PR move. It says to fans "look what we did, we are locking up our core." It says to agents, yeah, we'll hand out 40M dollar contracts to the right players. It says to players, FA's, etc. that "Yes, we are trying to build a winning team. We didn't dump salary after success, we are trying to build on it."

Sometimes contracts have to be looked at in the macro instead of the micro. The Micro suggests this move gains the Reds nothing. The macro suggests it's another attempt at changing a culture of losing, a perception that doesn't go away after one winning season.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 12:28 PM
I said to this effect last night...I just don't get this, cost certainty aside.

What do you think he would have made in arb/one year contracts the next 3 years?

My guess...

Year 1 9 M
Year 2 12 M
Year 3 15 M

Add it up...and I have been very generous with the dollars I might add. I don't get the point.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 12:30 PM
I disagree. It's a PR move. It says to fans "look what we did, we are locking up our core." It says to agents, yeah, we'll hand out 40M dollar contracts to the right players. It says to players, FA's, etc. that "Yes, we are trying to build a winning team. We didn't dump salary after success, we are trying to build on it."

Sometimes contracts have to be looked at in the macro instead of the micro. The Micro suggests this move gains the Reds nothing. The macro suggests it's another attempt at changing a culture of losing, a perception that doesn't go away after one winning season.

Then that is your opinion no offense intended I swear. He was a Red for the next 3 years regardless. This does nothing to change any culture, he was gonna be here anyway, and was gonna make close to the same amount anyway. He is not locked up anymore today than yesterday.

JaxRed
01-16-2011, 12:44 PM
The 2 great myths of our time;

1. 'Treat 'em right, so they'll return the favor'. His agent is ALREADY trying to get the max for his client. He will next time too.

2. The 'Sends a message' myth. Fans care about winning. Would it be nice if the Votto's and Bruce's of the world NEVER left and played their whole career here? Sure. But we're not the Yankees. MLB has set up a system where some teams play with 50% of the resources of the elites. The Reds can keep the fans happy by winning and that means making smart decisions on their limited budget.

The Reds won this year because the production of the smaller salary players was so great, that we could afford the lack of production from 2/3 of the 'over 10 million crowd (Arroyo, Cordero, and Harang.... only Arroyo was worth it)

But we're starting to make foolish decisions with our dollars. We extended Rolen 2 years to help sign Chapman and others, we extend Arroyo a year early, when we needed to let him walk after next year, and we defer the money so we're starting to live on borrowed money.

lollipopcurve
01-16-2011, 12:46 PM
Fighting an arb-eligible guy every step of the way pretty much guarantees that player tests free agency. Paying Votto for 3 years right now should engender some good will that will give the team a far better chance of retaining him on his next contract, should the team decide it wants to have him at that point.

Would have preferred the team get at least a year of free agency. Still, this is better than the team fighting out every last million with Votto for the next 3 years, IMO.

TRF
01-16-2011, 12:48 PM
Then that is your opinion no offense intended I swear. He was a Red for the next 3 years regardless. This does nothing to change any culture, he was gonna be here anyway, and was gonna make close to the same amount anyway. He is not locked up anymore today than yesterday.

Yep, he was going to be here regardless. The culture I am talking about is on the teams to come, and what players the org can now attract.


The 2 great myths of our time;

1. 'Treat 'em right, so they'll return the favor'. His agent is ALREADY trying to get the max for his client. He will next time too.

2. The 'Sends a message' myth. Fans care about winning. Would it be nice if the Votto's and Bruce's of the world NEVER left and played their whole career here? Sure. But we're not the Yankees. MLB has set up a system where some teams play with 50% of the resources of the elites. The Reds can keep the fans happy by winning and that means making smart decisions on their limited budget.

The Reds won this year because the production of the smaller salary players was so great, that we could afford the lack of production from 2/3 of the 'over 10 million crowd (Arroyo, Cordero, and Harang.... only Arroyo was worth it)

But we're starting to make foolish decisions with our dollars. We extended Rolen 2 years to help sign Chapman and others, we extend Arroyo a year early, when we needed to let him walk after next year, and we defer the money so we're starting to live on borrowed money.

Smart decisions are limited by who is willing to come to Cincinnati. Remember when the Reds signed Eric Milton? He certainly wasn't the first choice. The original targets wanted no part of Cincinnati. Now it seems they are starting to consider Cincinnati.

RedLegSuperStar
01-16-2011, 12:56 PM
I have no evidence either way, but I don't see that happening. IMO if Joey had given the Reds an opportunity to lock him up for a few years after arb. then they would have.

I mean if the deal really is worth 37M it will probably be structured like: 9M, 13M, 15M then once he hits free agency he's gonna want at least 18M per. I don't see how the Reds could afford that.

Someone who puts up MVP numbers which nets wins which nets fans in seats doesn't warrant 18 million? Yet Adam Dunn who has never won anything but a All Star slot warrants 15 million a year.. Or so that was what people were claim he get.. Hmm

I'm baffled

westofyou
01-16-2011, 12:57 PM
Not my money, out of my control, like the player... won't scream or stomp my foot about it being "foolish", "short sighted" or "bananas"

In short I won't pretend i know what's better for the Reds when counting their pennies over the internet.

Unassisted
01-16-2011, 01:04 PM
3 years, $38 million, pending physical.

Per Mark Sheldon

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/archives/2011/01/votto_signs_three-year_deal.html

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:08 PM
Not my money, out of my control, like the player... won't scream or stomp my foot about it being "foolish", "short sighted" or "bananas"

In short I won't pretend i know what's better for the Reds when counting their pennies over the internet.

To be clear I'm not screaming or stomping my foot...but I don't get it.

mbgrayson
01-16-2011, 01:08 PM
3 years, $38 million, pending physical.

Per Mark Shedon

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/archives/2011/01/votto_signs_three-year_deal.html (http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/archives/2011/01/votto_signs_three-year_deal.html)

Sweet! I like it....

hebroncougar
01-16-2011, 01:18 PM
I was hoping they'd push it and try for a 4 year 52, but I suppose cost certainty is a good thing.

membengal
01-16-2011, 01:22 PM
Surprised at the negativity, but then again, I loathe, completely, the fussing over the nickles paid by billionairres to millionairres, but some sure seem to love pouring over that minutia. More power to you, if that's you, I suppose.

As for me, I know that Votto is here for at least three more years without having to hear an annual drumbeat over arbitration numbers or the like. Something I completely hate. And if it gives the Reds the cost certainty they desire, I am glad.

Sounds good to me.

Let's get this season underway. Can't wait for pitchers and catchers to report.

RedLegSuperStar
01-16-2011, 01:26 PM
YES!!!!!!!

Thank you Ownership for locking VottoMatic up!

Matt700wlw
01-16-2011, 01:27 PM
Good. I'm sure the Reds want more years, and there's no reason they won't get them if his play warrants it....this avoids the arbitration headache.

westofyou
01-16-2011, 01:27 PM
To be clear I'm not screaming or stomping my foot...but I don't get it.

What's not to get?

Ryan Howard Arb

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3257829

Albert about to get 30 mill a year...

Seems to me that they don't want arb playing in the future, nor Alberts contract.

OnBaseMachine
01-16-2011, 01:27 PM
I like it. I wish they could have added another year or two but it's still a nice deal for both sides, IMO.

MartyFan
01-16-2011, 01:29 PM
3 years, $38 million, pending physical.

Per Mark Shedon

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/archives/2011/01/votto_signs_three-year_deal.html

I like it. I like it a lot and I think it is smart for both sides.

For the Reds, it gives them a chip to display to other players saying, look, we didn't have to sign Joey Votto for 3 arb years, but we did because we are committed to building around winning players...we'll deal with the free agent market and Joey when the time comes.

For Joey it allows himto continue to develop an see how the team responds with bringing in more talent. Remember (different ownership, different GM) when the Reds brought Junior in and then DID NOTHING to put a winner on the field around him...those years were hard for all of us to watch and I imagine it was hard for Junior to constantly feel good about fighting through injury after injury only to play alongside a bunch of polished turds.

i like the deal and I like what it signals that Walt and the mgmt/ownership see for the next decade of Reds baseball.:beerme:

Unassisted
01-16-2011, 01:29 PM
Surprised at the negativity, but then again, I loathe, completely, the fussing over the nickles paid by billionairres to millionairres, but some sure seem to love pouring over that minutia. More power to you, if that's you, I suppose.
Most of the fussers are acutely aware that there are a finite number of nickels. They just want to get the best pickles for those nickels. If you're not tickled by talk of nickels, just sit back and enjoy the pickles. ;)

Homer Bailey
01-16-2011, 01:33 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2302092&postcount=48


I can't link it from my phone, but just read the seldom article about the potential long term deal. My reaction? We have joey for three years .

RFS62
01-16-2011, 01:34 PM
I disagree. It's a PR move. It says to fans "look what we did, we are locking up our core." It says to agents, yeah, we'll hand out 40M dollar contracts to the right players. It says to players, FA's, etc. that "Yes, we are trying to build a winning team. We didn't dump salary after success, we are trying to build on it."

Sometimes contracts have to be looked at in the macro instead of the micro. The Micro suggests this move gains the Reds nothing. The macro suggests it's another attempt at changing a culture of losing, a perception that doesn't go away after one winning season.



I have to agree. The Reds have been putting out a consistent message. They're about winning now.

Public perception and the perception of potential free agents IS important.

You don't change that with one move. You change it with an ongoing series of moves, just as it was an ongoing series of moves and non-moves crying poormouth over the past 10 years that ran us into the ditch before Castellini took over.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:38 PM
What's not to get?

Ryan Howard Arb

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3257829

Albert about to get 30 mill a year...

Seems to me that they don't want arb playing in the future, nor Alberts contract.

All indications were Votto was gonna submit 9-10 Million for 2011. So factor that and now we are talking a 2 yr 28 Million contract for 2012/13. And I will ask again, what do you think, year by year, Votto would have made if they went on 1 yr deals.

Just seems like they are taking on some risk that was unnecessary, when the end result would be about the same.

WMR
01-16-2011, 01:42 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2302092&postcount=48

4 or I would have just gone year to year. The writing's on the wall it appears.

backbencher
01-16-2011, 01:42 PM
Just seems like they are taking on some risk that was unnecessary, when the end result would be about the same.

I don't think so. In Votto's last year of arb, he would have been able to use all MLB contracts as comps - including Howard, ARod, Teixeira, soon-to-be-Pujols. On his current production trend, I think that year would have gotten him $20MM, easy. Probably more.

westofyou
01-16-2011, 01:42 PM
All indications were Votto was gonna submit 9-10 Million for 2011.

He that lives upon hope will die fasting.

Benjamin Franklin

reds1869
01-16-2011, 01:44 PM
I like it. Cost certainty is vital to small market clubs, and removing the mental and emotional strain of annual arbitration is a good thing indeed.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:45 PM
He that lives upon hope will die fasting.

Benjamin Franklin

Clever quote, but you both deleted out my question and avoided answering it.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:47 PM
And forgive my ignorance but do we have a comp of a player like Votto who HAS gone year to year, and what they made over their 3 pre-arb years?

westofyou
01-16-2011, 01:50 PM
Clever quote, but you both deleted out my question and avoided answering it.

The market is liquid, guessing what level he gets year by year is like picking up mercury, you think it can be done, but it's a foolish task.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:51 PM
The market is liquid, guessing what level he gets year by year is like picking up mercury, you think it can be done, but it's a foolish task.

So you just hand him 38 million over 3 years without forecasting at all what you think he would make year to year?

camisadelgolf
01-16-2011, 01:51 PM
A penny saved is a penny earned.

Benjamin Franklin

GAC
01-16-2011, 01:51 PM
Good. I'm sure the Reds want more years

Very possible. Some seem to be slightly upset that Red's management somehow screwed up with only a 3 yr deal; but maybe, just maybe, that's all they could wrangle from his agent? Possible?

Have no problem whatsoever with this contract.

And can't they also, like they did with Arroyo, add a year or two on later, if the two sides can come to a mutual agreement? But for now, we've got him locked in for the next 3 years, and they affirmatively know (a set amount) what they have to pay him, and not worry what he may/may not get via arbitration in the future.

camisadelgolf
01-16-2011, 01:52 PM
Time is money.

Benjamin Franklin

camisadelgolf
01-16-2011, 01:52 PM
He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

Benjamin Franklin

backbencher
01-16-2011, 01:52 PM
And forgive my ignorance but do we have a comp of a player like Votto who HAS gone year to year, and what they made over their 3 pre-arb years?

Ryan Howard got $54MM for his last three arb years.

westofyou
01-16-2011, 01:53 PM
So you just hand him 38 million over 3 years without forecasting at all what you think he would make year to year?

Apparently the guys who know more about the process than I do think so.

I focus on the game, not the contracts myself.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:55 PM
Ryan Howard got $54MM for his last three arb years.

a) they did not go year by year
b) how's that working out

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:57 PM
Apparently the guys who know more about the process than I do think so.

I focus on the game, not the contracts myself.

You are focused enough to let me know I am wrong for "not getting this". Yet, you won't produce numbers to show me how. I'm open-minded...I'd just like to know yours and others opinions on how much money this is saving the Reds.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 01:58 PM
Redszone rockin' Bartlett's today I see.

westofyou
01-16-2011, 02:00 PM
You are focused enough to let me know I am wrong for "not getting this". Yet, you won't produce numbers to show me how. I'm open-minded...I'd just like to know yours and others opinions on how much money this is saving the Reds.

Reigning MVP, comps with Pujoles and Howard, who make an enormous amount of money.. that's about all I really have time for now.

Sorry to disappoint you.

mth123
01-16-2011, 02:04 PM
Some things to consider:

1. Cost certainty is vital when it comes to figuring out what to do with the rest of the roster. Brandon Phillips is in his last year with an expensive option got 2012. The Reds really have no replacement who isn't a monumental drop-off on both offense and defense. How this is structured may go a long way toward that decision.

2. The CBA expires after the 2011 season. There is no guarantee that the Reds had Votto locked up for three more years. Both sides seem to hate the arb process and I could see arb being eliminated completely for a year or two of free agency sooner. Say 4 years with no arb (and no worries about Super 2) and right to free agency after the fourth season. Its very possible that this deal may end-up buying a year or two of free agency.

I think its smart to lock Votto up while we still know the rules. I'd like to see the same happen with Cueto.

backbencher
01-16-2011, 02:20 PM
a) they did not go year by year
b) how's that working out

"How's that working out" doesn't matter for arbitration purposes. Howard is the undeniable comp.

As for the numbers, assuming constant production, Votto is likely to get $8MM this year and is an iron-clad cinch to go over $20MM for 2013. I'm not going to try to determine likely 2012 numbers, but it's pretty clear that the Reds save millions overall, assuming constant production. Votto's benefit is that he does not have to worry about the production or about health.

There's also a real benefit in avoiding arbitration with Votto, who, for a variety of reasons (health, role in clubhouse, age, production), strikes me as about the last guy on the team that I'd want to go to arbitration with.

reds44
01-16-2011, 02:22 PM
What is up with the Ben Franklin quotes? I like it, if anything it at least gives Walt knowledge of where his budget will be every year.

IslandRed
01-16-2011, 02:34 PM
I don't think so. In Votto's last year of arb, he would have been able to use all MLB contracts as comps - including Howard, ARod, Teixeira, soon-to-be-Pujols. On his current production trend, I think that year would have gotten him $20MM, easy. Probably more.

^^^ That.

In the end, I think the Reds did the smart thing by locking up Votto as long as they could before Pujols' eventual megadeal becomes hard fact. I wish it had been longer, but it takes two to tango, and if I was Votto I'd want to see what Pujols gets before I start giving up free-agency years.

So the Reds did what usually happens in these instances: they locked him up for as long as they feasibly could, paid him more than circumstances may have allowed them to pay, but less than circumstances may have forced them to pay.

As to whether it helps them down the road -- I don't know. I know that if it comes down to a pure mercenary negotiation three years from now, the Reds won't win. Whatever chance they have to win comes from extending Votto before he hits free agency, and that chance hinges at least in part of what he thinks of the organization. This ultimately may not make a difference but it certainly won't hurt.

TheNext44
01-16-2011, 02:46 PM
Some things to consider:


2. The CBA expires after the 2011 season. There is no guarantee that the Reds had Votto locked up for three more years. Both sides seem to hate the arb process and I could see arb being eliminated completely for a year or two of free agency sooner. Say 4 years with no arb (and no worries about Super 2) and right to free agency after the fourth season. Its very possible that this deal may end-up buying a year or two of free agency.

I think its smart to lock Votto up while we still know the rules. I'd like to see the same happen with Cueto.

Very interesting. I've always hoped for something like this. arb + free agency is what caused the explosion of contracts.

I actually would love to see both gotten rid of and have a complete free market all the time with every player. That way players get paid fairly, regardless of service time. It would just mean no more cheap young talent, and level the playing field for mid to small market teams.

However, I just can't see the players union giving up the golden egg laying goose. The current system just works too well for them. Anyway, that's a topic for another thread, but I like your thinking.

HeatherC1212
01-16-2011, 02:46 PM
I'm thrilled I won't have to worry about arbitration numbers and potential arguments for the Reds and Joey for the next three years. It's not the lifetime contract I keep hoping for but it's a good first step. :jump:

Ron Madden
01-16-2011, 03:01 PM
If its just a 3 year deal (with no options), I'm not sure what's in it for the Reds other than perhaps saving a bit of money.

If the Reds are going to guarantee Votto financial secuirty for life 3 years before they have too, Votto has to give up at least 1 FA year, whether by option or otherwise.

Otherwise, I'd just go year to year. It might cost me more, but I also don't have the huge risk of injury regression biting me in the a$$.

I agree.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 03:03 PM
I actually would love to see both gotten rid of and have a complete free market all the time with every player. That way players get paid fairly, regardless of service time. It would just mean no more cheap young talent, and level the playing field for mid to small market teams.



Unless there was a hard salary cap, it would be the death of 2/3rds of the teams.

There would be no reason to develop young players (the only chance a small market team has) as the Yankees/BoSox would sign them away at the very first opportunity.

Salaries in total would be higher, the only real difference is that more of the better talent would go to the large market teams, leaving the small market teams to squabble of the balance of the players.

Small market teams couldn't even trade their pending FA's for some young talent.

Baseball as we know it would end. The Reds would cease being a viable franchise. At least it would cease having any chance to win a world series.

TheNext44
01-16-2011, 03:25 PM
Unless there was a hard salary cap, it would be the death of 2/3rds of the teams.

There would be no reason to develop young players (the only chance a small market team has) as the Yankees/BoSox would sign them away at the very first opportunity.

Salaries in total would be higher, the only real difference is that more of the better talent would go to the large market teams, leaving the small market teams to squabble of the balance of the players.

Small market teams couldn't even trade their pending FA's for some young talent.

Baseball as we know it would end. The Reds would cease being a viable franchise. At least it would cease having any chance to win a world series.

Like I said, a topic for a different thread. But it would mean a completely different salary structure, with much, much lower salaries for around 75% of the players.

Right now, if a team needs a 3B, there are around 5-6 on the free agent noarket at anyone time, with only 1-2 being real difference makers. So you have every team needing a 3B (usually around twice as many as available 3B) bidding on those two players, so they get outrageous offers (see Werth, Jayson; Crawford, Carl). Then, with arbitration, every 3B with 3 years experience gets paid based on that salary.

With everyone a free agent every year, only the big stars would get big contracts, There will roughy be the same amount of players of each postion available as there are teams needing them. No big bidding wars except for the truely exceptional players, and close to minimum salaries for the majority of the team Guys like Joe Blanton Juan Pierre and Luis Castillo would never get long term contracts, and guys llke Gomes, R. Hernandez and Freel would always be playing for close to the minimum.

Small to mid market teams would just have to sign their big talent to long term contracts a few years earlier, but most likely to much lower contracts overall.

It just would be a completely different mindset, and small to mid market teams would just have to find a different way to stay competitive.

johngalt
01-16-2011, 03:30 PM
I guess I'm not exactly sure what people are frustrated about and why some are shaking their heads at this one.

Once both sides started discussing possibly signing a multi-year deal (which virtually all fans were in favor of), obviously it was going to come down to whether Votto and his agent would be willing to give up any FA years in the deal. Apparently, they decided they weren't and once that happened, what were the Reds supposed to do? Say "Okay, well, we don't want to do any deal then"? Yeah, that would've struck up some goodwill.

Joey Votto is not impulsive. He's not going to make any important decision quickly and he's not going to limit his options too soon. To think he'd be willing to sign a 5 or 6 year contract right on the heels of an MVP season was foolish if you know his personality. It's just something you'll have to work toward and establish along the way.

And one thing to always consider - he and Pujols share the same agent. You can see what's happened there when there's been some frustration with the team for not working with the player.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 03:33 PM
Small to mid market teams would just have to sign their big talent to long term contracts a few years earlier, but most likely to much lower contracts overall.

It just would be a completely different mindset, and small to mid market teams would just have to find a different way to stay competitive.

But when the small market teams tried to sign their big talent to long term contracts there would be immediate competition from all the other teams, including those with way more money.

Salaries certainly wouldn't go down.

If Chapman had been draft eligible do you think he would have gotten $30M of guanteed money? That's what FA does to a player's bargaining power.

The only way small market teams could stay competitive would be to form their own league.

If all players were FA's all the time you'd have to have a hard salary cap for teams to remain competitive.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 03:35 PM
I don't think there would be too much goodwill lost if the Reds simply said to Votto "if you don't want to add any post arb years on the deal, we will be giving you perfectly reasonable one year deals until you change your mind". That's business.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 03:41 PM
I guess I'm not exactly sure what people are frustrated about and why some are shaking their heads at this one.

Once both sides started discussing possibly signing a multi-year deal (which virtually all fans were in favor of), obviously it was going to come down to whether Votto and his agent would be willing to give up any FA years in the deal. Apparently, they decided they weren't and once that happened, what were the Reds supposed to do? Say "Okay, well, we don't want to do any deal then"? Yeah, that would've struck up some goodwill.

Joey Votto is not impulsive. He's not going to make any important decision quickly and he's not going to limit his options too soon. To think he'd be willing to sign a 5 or 6 year contract right on the heels of an MVP season was foolish if you know his personality. It's just something you'll have to work toward and establish along the way.

And one thing to always consider - he and Pujols share the same agent. You can see what's happened there when there's been some frustration with the team for not working with the player.

I'm trying to think of an example where a player has signed a 3+ years contract covering his arb years where at least 1 FA year wasn't included. I guess Ryan Hoaward.

I think that the reason some of us are disappointed is that Votto signed for only those years he was tied to the Reds, and wouldn't commit beyond that. It doesn't give one much confidence we will be able to afford him down the road.

Put it this way.

The good feeling of having him signed for 3 years at an OK rate is tempered by the knowledge that he wouldn't do what virtually every other players does in his situation when presented with a long term deal covering his arb years and a few FA years (take the money and run).

fearofpopvol1
01-16-2011, 03:51 PM
Yawn

johngalt
01-16-2011, 03:52 PM
The good feeling of having him signed for 3 years at an OK rate is tempered by the knowledge that he wouldn't do what virtually every other players does in his situation when presented with a long term deal covering his arb years and a few FA years (take the money and run).

I guess that's my point, though. Joey Votto is a unique guy. Anyone who has ever worked with him much notices that right away. He's just a cautious, calculating guy who's going to want to consider all of his options and let some of this play out. Some people are going to take that as he's going to want to get every dollar possible, but I don't really think it's like that. It's just him seeing the "safe way" as not making too long of a commitment right now.

reds1869
01-16-2011, 03:58 PM
I don't think there would be too much goodwill lost if the Reds simply said to Votto "if you don't want to add any post arb years on the deal, we will be giving you perfectly reasonable one year deals until you change your mind". That's business.

As someone who has been part of many contract negotiations, I respectfully disagree. The party providing the service/labor rarely takes well to "well, it's our money, take it or leave it" tactics. Votto may or may not pay the Reds back for their goodwill, but he most certainly would have remembered their perceived lack of loyalty if they hadn't signed him. This is a great deal for both sides and I am starting to believe Joey Votto will spend a long time in a Cincinnati uniform.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 04:06 PM
I guess that's my point, though. Joey Votto is a unique guy. Anyone who has ever worked with him much notices that right away. He's just a cautious, calculating guy who's going to want to consider all of his options and let some of this play out. Some people are going to take that as he's going to want to get every dollar possible, but I don't really think it's like that. It's just him seeing the "safe way" as not making too long of a commitment right now.

I note he took as much money as he likely could to insure his financial secuirty for each year where he "had no choice". A true, cautious, calculating guy would simply go year to year.

Let's put it this way. A greedy player who was only interested in his finacial security and making as much money as possible (i.e. one who planned to use FA to get every last dollar), would likely have done just as Votto has. Now, this doesn't mean that's what he plans to do, but from all appearances Votto was looking for finacial secuirty now but with the option to jump ship for the most money possible as the earliest possible time.

Spin it any way you want, but Votto has behaved like you would expect the greediest player would do (but one who was still concened about financial security). Again, that doesn't mean he's "that guy". But it doesn't mean he isn't either.

Brutus
01-16-2011, 04:07 PM
I can't believe there are actually detractors to this.

Sure, I think everyone would have loved a 5-year or 7-year deal, locking him up beyond arbitration. But Votto apparently isn't ready to make that commitment.

So this was the logical next step.

Are there actually people that would rather take a chance on going year to year with arbitration? Over 3 years, especially with that last season, where as mentioned, Votto's stats & salary will be fair game with everyone in baseball -- it's conceivable the Reds saved $7-10 million with this deal.

OK so maybe this deal only "saves some money" and nothing else. Isn't that alone incentive to do it? I understand this isn't a jumping up and down moment, but I see no earthly reason not to do it.

pedro
01-16-2011, 04:12 PM
It also saves time and good will which are both of substantial value as well.

Ron Madden
01-16-2011, 04:13 PM
I'm certainly not frustrated with having Votto signed for three years.

I'm just a bit curious as to why the deal only covers his arbitration years.


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/16/why-three-years/

RedsBaron
01-16-2011, 04:17 PM
While I wish the Reds could have signed Votto to a ten year contract for $1,000,000 a season, I'm happy with this deal.

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 04:22 PM
I can't believe there are actually detractors to this.

Sure, I think everyone would have loved a 5-year or 7-year deal, locking him up beyond arbitration. But Votto apparently isn't ready to make that commitment.

So this was the logical next step.

Are there actually people that would rather take a chance on going year to year with arbitration? Over 3 years, especially with that last season, where as mentioned, Votto's stats & salary will be fair game with everyone in baseball -- it's conceivable the Reds saved $7-10 million with this deal.

OK so maybe this deal only "saves some money" and nothing else. Isn't that alone incentive to do it? I understand this isn't a jumping up and down moment, but I see no earthly reason not to do it.

I don't think anyone really hates the deal per se. I've read nothing to suggest anyone said they wouldn't do it.

But I think many are disappointed it wasn't longer, and especially disappointed what the 3 year length really means to the future prospects of him staying here longterm.

If you had asked me yesterday what I thought the chances of Votto being here 4 years from now where, I would have given you a higher number than I would today. I think many are feeling the same way. That's why there isn't any jumping up and down.

He's under our control for three years. That I could have told you yesterday.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 04:25 PM
Yeah I'm not upset or a detractor...but it is puzzling to me. That's all.

Brutus
01-16-2011, 04:26 PM
Yeah I'm not upset or a detractor...but it is puzzling to me. That's all.

What's puzzling about it? He's made it clear he's not ready to commit to anything, anyone, long-term. So this is what he was willing to accept.

It seems if he were willing, the Reds would have signed him to a longer deal.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 04:33 PM
What's puzzling about it? He's made it clear he's not ready to commit to anything, anyone, long-term. So this is what he was willing to accept.

It seems if he were willing, the Reds would have signed him to a longer deal.

I don't know that the reward is worth the risk of writing a 38 million dollar check today. I've asked for numbers to convince me and no one has provided them.

Captain Hook
01-16-2011, 04:35 PM
What's puzzling about it? He's made it clear he's not ready to commit to anything, anyone, long-term. So this is what he was willing to accept.

It seems if he were willing, the Reds would have signed him to a longer deal.

I agree.What are the Reds supposed to do.Tell him that if he won't sign a 4 or 5 year deal they're just going to go through the arbitration process every year until it's time for him to test free agency.That kind of strategy make teams like the Yankees and Boston favorites to sign him three years from now today.At least this shows that the Reds are reasonable and willing to give in to what Joey wants.IMO this way the Reds remain the clear cut favorites to sing him long term in 2014.

RedsManRick
01-16-2011, 04:40 PM
I don't think people appreciate what Votto could have gotten in arbitration. He very well could have gone 9M, 15M, 21M. His comps are making $25M.

Pujols, Teix, Cabrera -- each making more than $20M per year. Adrian Gonzalez will do so in his next contract. Standard arb values go something like 40%, 60%, 80% of free agent value. If Votto were to continue this level of production, he'd get something in that $20M-$24M range, not accounting for inflation over the next few years.

So, what's 40/60/80 of $20M? $36M. There you go. Throw in some awards on top of the production and the arbiters could easily go higher.

Yes, the Reds could possibly have gotten Votto for less going year to year, particularly if he has a down year. But the cost certainty is valuable and perhaps most importantly of all they don't have to worry about his contract status for a few more years. The opportunity cost of having to prepare for arbitration and introduce the possibility of acrimony should not be understated.

RedsManRick
01-16-2011, 04:42 PM
I'm certainly not frustrated with having Votto signed for three years.

I'm just a bit curious as to why the deal only covers his arbitration years.


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/16/why-three-years/

Votto has basically said he's not ready to commit to anywhere for an extended period of time -- just isn't comfortable doing that. Doesn't seem to be anything against the Reds.

Brutus
01-16-2011, 04:58 PM
I don't know that the reward is worth the risk of writing a 38 million dollar check today. I've asked for numbers to convince me and no one has provided them.

Well, Rick posted a good estimation just before mine, and it comes out to about what they're paying in this deal. But the key is that no one can present any numbers before because teams simply don't go year to year with these guys, and I imagine there's a good reason for that. No one wants to take a chance with an award that is out of their hands.

If Votto were awarded $10 mil this year, $15 mil next year, and $20 mil the year after, that's still $7 million more than they're paying in this 3-year deal. Even saving $7 million for a team like the Reds seems like a win-win situation.

johngalt
01-16-2011, 05:04 PM
What's puzzling about it? He's made it clear he's not ready to commit to anything, anyone, long-term. So this is what he was willing to accept.

It seems if he were willing, the Reds would have signed him to a longer deal.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure where the "puzzling" part is either. Reds wanted to get something done and Votto obviously didn't want to commit to as long as the Reds did. The fallback then was to at least get something done for the arbitration years so all sides could table all the talk for a while and be able to concentrate on other things. Seems pretty simple.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 05:04 PM
I don't think people appreciate what Votto could have gotten in arbitration. He very well could have gone 9M, 15M, 21M. His comps are making $25M.

Pujols, Teix, A-Gone, Cabrera -- all making more than $20M per year (Gonzalez will in his next contract). Standard arb values go something like 40%, 60%, 80% of free agent value. If Votto were to continue this level of production, he'd get something in that $20M-$24M range.

So, what's 40/60/80 of $20M? $36M. There you go. Throw in some awards and the arbiters could have gone higher.

Yes, the Reds could possibly have gotten Votto for less going year to year, particularly if he has a down year. But the cost certainty is valuable and perhaps most importantly of all they don't have to worry about his contract status for a few more years. The opportunity cost of having to prepare for arbitration and introduce the possibility of acrimony should not be understated.

I think people can be on either side of this one and not be wrong. I'd rather not risk all that cash up front if he is going to be here anyway, and others would rather pony it up now, for sake of goodwill and cost certainty.

I have no beef with people being happy with this nor am I upset...it is just not the way I would have gone about it. Fair enough?

redsfandan
01-16-2011, 05:22 PM
Hindsight's 20/20 but it's now obvious that the Reds should've given him a LTC last year.

So, now who is going to be the 1st baseman in 2014?

I'm skeptical that the Reds will be able to give a contract that averages $25M/yr. And 3 years is a long time for Alonso to wait for a chance.

johngalt
01-16-2011, 05:24 PM
Hindsight's 20/20 but it's now obvious that the Reds should've given him a LTC last year.


Sure, it would be great to sign guys to deals anytime it's best for you to do it. Again, it takes both sides to make a deal. There is zero chance Joey Votto would've signed a long-term contract after 2009. None.

Will M
01-16-2011, 05:28 PM
I know this sounds like blasphemy but hear me out.

Yonder Alonso will likely be ready for the show by mid season (if he isn't already). Its been speculated that the team might deal him mid season for a couple of reasons: 1) his trade value should improve by having him tear up AAA for half a season & 2) he is blocked by Votto. Alonso apparently can't play left field. Votto apparently can't or won't.

Now. If the Reds let Votto play out his contract & sign elsewhere after 2013 they will get 2 draft picks (under the current system). If they trade him after 2012 they might get more & if they trade him after 2011 they should get even more.

So...should the Reds hang onto Alonso, revisit a long term deal with Votto after 2011 & if he doesn't want to sign then explore trading him (as opposed to waiting until after 2012 or simply getting draft pick compensation after 2013)?

I(heart)Freel
01-16-2011, 05:31 PM
"But how will Chris Carpenter explain this to his son?"

--- Benjamin Franklin

MWM
01-16-2011, 05:34 PM
I think folks are underestimating the animosity that is so often generated between player and team during the arb process. Players have been known to really get their feathers ruffled during the process, especially as most of them have their agents in their ear telling them things to make them believe they're not being treated fairly.

Votto is much more emotional than most major league ballplayers, so his propensity to internalize the process is probably much higher than most guys. I think it was the right move accordingly.

redsfandan
01-16-2011, 05:37 PM
I know this sounds like blasphemy but hear me out...

So...should the Reds hang onto Alonso, revisit a long term deal with Votto after 2011 & if he doesn't want to sign then explore trading him (as opposed to waiting until after 2012 or simply getting draft pick compensation after 2013)?
The Dodgers would probably be interested.

mace
01-16-2011, 05:49 PM
I think folks are underestimating the contention that so often occurs between player and team during the arb process. Players have been known to really get their feathers ruffled during the process, especially as most of them have their agents in their ear telling them things to make them believe they're not being treated fairly.



Votto's agent is Dan Lozano, who also represents Pujols and who cut his teeth on Mike Piazza. Although Piazza was widely thought to be wedded to the Dodgers (through his connection to Lasorda and because they were the team that took a shot with him), the two parties always had contentious negotiations that significantly affected their relationship. When it became the last year of Piazza's last contract before free agency, he and Lozano set a spring-training deadline to get an extension done. Note that Pujols just set a spring-training deadline to get an extension done. The deadline wasn't met--perhaps partly because the Dodgers were changing ownership at the time--and the relationship deteriorated to the point that nothing got done and, that May, the Dodgers traded Piazza to the Marlins in what proved to be an infamously bad deal. Had the relationship proceeded on better terms all along, it likely would have never come to that. Piazza will go into the Hall of Fame as a Met.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 06:09 PM
I think folks are underestimating the animosity that is so often generated between player and team during the arb process. Players have been known to really get their feathers ruffled during the process, especially as most of them have their agents in their ear telling them things to make them believe they're not being treated fairly.

Votto is much more emotional than most major league ballplayers, so his propensity to internalize the process is probably much higher than most guys. I think it was the right move accordingly.

The arb process does get testy...but I think there are ways to go year to year with each party treating the other with respect and coming to a fair number.

Caveman Techie
01-16-2011, 06:13 PM
Time for my .02 cents. I look at this as the Reds really wanting to avoid going to arbitration with Votto. I'm sure they tried to get a FA year out of the deal, but when that didn't happen they gave him the contract to buy out the arbitration years, cause going to arbitration is not a fun process for anyone, player or club. This way they can avoid that process with Votto, and now they have three more years to negotiate an extension.

MWM
01-16-2011, 06:14 PM
The arb process does get testy...but I think there are ways to go year to year with each party treating the other with respect and coming to a fair number.

Of course there, but why risk it when you have a highly sensitive player. There's a difference between the highly egotistical player and the highly sensitive one. I just don't see tons of downside to the move. The chance that this saves the Reds money is greater than the chance that it costs them money, IMO. I'm sure they tried for that 4th year, but when it wasn't going to happen, they decided this was better than going to battle for 3 years.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 06:24 PM
Of course there, but why risk it when you have a highly sensitive player. There's a difference between the highly egotistical player and the highly sensitive one. I just don't see tons of downside to the move. The chance that this saves the Reds money is greater than the chance that it costs them money, IMO. I'm sure they tried for that 4th year, but when it wasn't going to happen, they decided this was better than going to battle for 3 years.

Fair points on all of the above.

edabbs44
01-16-2011, 06:40 PM
Not doing cartwheels but not mad either. Maybe Votto's agent said "If you want any chance of Joey being here beyond 2013, a 3 year deal may help".

Either way, you know how I feel.

I(heart)Freel
01-16-2011, 06:48 PM
Of course there, but why risk it when you have a highly sensitive player. There's a difference between the highly egotistical player and the highly sensitive one. I just don't see tons of downside to the move. The chance that this saves the Reds money is greater than the chance that it costs them money, IMO. I'm sure they tried for that 4th year, but when it wasn't going to happen, they decided this was better than going to battle for 3 years.

Well said. That might be the crux of the whole spectrum of reactions on this thread.

I tend to think there's a greater chance the Reds will have overpaid. Votto does represent some health risk. And, moreso, it might be too much to expect that Votto puts up MVP type numbers going forward. Solid, for sure. Great even. But best production from any position player in the majors?

I think with this contract they're paying closer to that standard.

RedsManRick
01-16-2011, 06:50 PM
I think people can be on either side of this one and not be wrong. I'd rather not risk all that cash up front if he is going to be here anyway, and others would rather pony it up now, for sake of goodwill and cost certainty.

I have no beef with people being happy with this nor am I upset...it is just not the way I would have gone about it. Fair enough?

I wasn't suggesting there was a "right" answer nor do I think I was insinuating somebody was upset. I was simply pointing out that some of the assumptions about what Votto would have gotten in arb had they gone year to year seemed a bit low to me.

It's still completely reasonable to suggest year-to-year is the approach you'd prefer to take.

My position is that the money is pretty much splitting the difference. If Votto continues at an MVP pace, the Reds will come out ahead money wise compared to going year-to-year. If he falls back to a .900ish OPS guy, Votto probably comes out ahead. But I don't think this was about money per se'. Rather, it was about not having to go to arbitration 3 times with your best player, opening the possibility for bad blood and wasting the time & energy of the front office.

I'm personally ambivalent, but inclined to think that the simple peace of mind of neither Votto nor the front office having to think about it is a good thing.

RED VAN HOT
01-16-2011, 06:53 PM
It looks to me that the Reds are getting him for fair value for two years. I do not believe the Reds will allow him to simply play out his contract without a new one in place. Thus, before the 2013 season they will attempt to work out a new contract covering several post-arb years. If they cannot, they will have a very attractive trading chip at a salary low enough to merit inclusion of some good prospects in the deal.

Ron Madden
01-16-2011, 07:03 PM
JFay thinks another reason the Reds went for a three year deal is because they know they can't afford to pay Votto once he reaches the FA market.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110116/SPT04/301160061/1062/SPT/Reds-Votto-agree-to-deal

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 07:03 PM
I wasn't suggesting there was a "right" answer nor do I think I was insinuating somebody was upset. I was simply pointing out that some of the assumptions about what Votto would have gotten in arb had they gone year to year seemed a bit low to me.

It's still completely reasonable to suggest year-to-year is the approach you'd prefer to take.

My position is that the money is pretty much splitting the difference. If Votto continues at an MVP pace, the Reds will come out ahead money wise compared to going year-to-year. If he falls back to a .900ish OPS guy, Votto probably comes out ahead. But I don't think this was about money per se'. Rather, it was about not having to go to arbitration 3 times with your best player, opening the possibility for bad blood and wasting the time & energy of the front office.

I'm personally ambivalent, but inclined to think that the simple peace of mind of neither Votto nor the front office having to think about it is a good thing.

The upset remark wasn't even toward your post FYI....it was just to clarify what some others were posting...and it may not have even been at me. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't thrown in the "upset" crowd. Sorry for the confusion.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 07:05 PM
JFay thinks another reason the Reds went for a three year deal is because they know they can't afford to pay Votto once he reaches the FA market.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110116/SPT04/301160061/1062/SPT/Reds-Votto-agree-to-deal

I'm sorry Ron, but the article lost me at Ray Howard. :D

steig
01-16-2011, 07:06 PM
It looks to me that the Reds are getting him for fair value for two years. I do not believe the Reds will allow him to simply play out his contract without a new one in place. Thus, before the 2013 season they will attempt to work out a new contract covering several post-arb years. If they cannot, they will have a very attractive trading chip at a salary low enough to merit inclusion of some good prospects in the deal.

I hope the Reds would be willing to go through with this option. It is the smart baseball option especially if they hold on to Alonso and allow him to develop. I want the Reds to make the best baseball decision and not let fans dictate signing Votto to a LTD if he really doesn't want to be in Cincy.

Ron Madden
01-16-2011, 07:10 PM
I'm sorry Ron, but the article lost me at Ray Howard. :D

I'm not saying I agree with the article just that it provides another opinion to throw in the mix.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 07:10 PM
I'm not saying I agree with the article just that it provides another opinion to throw in the mix.

I was just making fun of Fay's sloppiness...the article is beside the point. :D

PuffyPig
01-16-2011, 07:22 PM
JFay thinks another reason the Reds went for a three year deal is because they know they can't afford to pay Votto once he reaches the FA market.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110116/SPT04/301160061/1062/SPT/Reds-Votto-agree-to-deal

Makkes zero sense.

They could trade him at that time if they couldn't afford him.

jojo
01-16-2011, 07:24 PM
Yep, he was going to be here regardless. The culture I am talking about is on the teams to come, and what players the org can now attract.



Smart decisions are limited by who is willing to come to Cincinnati. Remember when the Reds signed Eric Milton? He certainly wasn't the first choice. The original targets wanted no part of Cincinnati. Now it seems they are starting to consider Cincinnati.

The reds didn't decide to spend money that off season until all of the good targets were gone.

Buying out arb years doesn't attract free agents. What it does is let the reds plan with more certainty as well as better gauge trade value.

Ron Madden
01-16-2011, 07:45 PM
Hal McCoy weighs in on the Votto deal.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/index.html

Mario-Rijo
01-16-2011, 08:37 PM
I guess it's nice and all but frankly Joey (and baseballs ridiculous salaries) has already taken the luster off of his Reds legacy for me. He'll get in his 3 years and be gone so I have already begun to look at his situation as a business deal alone and not a baseball one. As a matter of fact this has finally taken that last bit of passion from my boyhood away from me. Not for the game itself but just the love affair with enjoying the players. If he stays now it'll be great but It won't ever be the same again for me. Probably long overdue anyhow.

westofyou
01-16-2011, 08:44 PM
I guess it's nice and all but frankly Joey (and baseballs ridiculous salaries) has already taken the luster off of his Reds legacy for me. He'll get in his 3 years and be gone so I have already begun to look at his situation as a business deal alone and not a baseball one. As a matter of fact this has finally taken that last bit of passion from my boyhood away from me. Not for the game itself but just the love affair with enjoying the players. If he stays now it'll be great but It won't ever be the same again for me. Probably long overdue anyhow.

Pete Rose 1978 for me.

For me I will always love the game, and address the business aspect wearingly.

Razor Shines
01-16-2011, 08:54 PM
Someone who puts up MVP numbers which nets wins which nets fans in seats doesn't warrant 18 million? Yet Adam Dunn who has never won anything but a All Star slot warrants 15 million a year.. Or so that was what people were claim he get.. Hmm

I'm baffled

I didn't say he wasn't worth it or that I would not want them to sign him. As someone else pointed out 18M was low and I admit it is very low. My point was that I don't think the Reds are going to pay him.


YES!!!!!!!

Thank you Ownership for locking VottoMatic up!

And they didn't lock up anything. They already had him for 3 years.

I'm pretty much neutral about the deal. Maybe the good faith will get them something once he hits free agency and I hope so, but I don't see it. I think he's gonna get some huge offers and he may not go to NY or Boston but I think someone in a city that he likes will offer him a ton of money.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 09:06 PM
I stand by this remark I made earlier...looks like Fay underestimated his cost FWIW, albeit not by much.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2305505&postcount=81


Fay had a blurb in a column over the past few days saying he'd guess 4 years of Votto would cost 53 million. Any additional year would cost at least 18 million per.

I'll be honest, reading that sunk my stomach a bit.

I could stomach the 4 years 53 million. But the 18 million just doesn't jive with me vis a vis the Reds projected budget.

To me it seems the end game for Votto in Cincy will be to be traded to a high payroll team down the line. If that is the case I'd do the 4 year 53 million, and depending on circumstances, be willing to deal him at the drop of a hat.

Not shop him, but try to get the most bang for your buck out of him. If the Reds are struggling in 2012 and they get their socks knocked off by a trade proposal...go for it.

I just can't see 18 million per ever being a sustainable salary for a member of the Reds.

TheNext44
01-16-2011, 09:09 PM
I'm not so sure Votto will be gone in 2014, for the same reason why I think Pujols will stay with the Cardinals. I just don't see a place for him to get a $150M+ contract.

Red Sox have A. Gonzalez
Yankees have Tex
Mets have Ike Davis
Phillies have Howard

The Angels are the only team that could afford to outbid the Reds that could possible have a need for a 1B in 2014. That's three years away, so who knows what their roster will look like then. And I think teams will be hesitant to pay a DH $25M a years for 5+ years.

All the other teams really don't have a financial advantage over the Reds. He might want a 7 year $175M contract, but I think he will have a harder time finding it than he thinks.

If the Reds are a contending team during the next three seasons, and make the playoffs at least once, I think they have a good chance of keeping him, even if he wants to test the market.

kaldaniels
01-16-2011, 09:11 PM
I'm not so sure Votto will be gone in 2014, for the same reason why I think Pujols will stay with the Cardinals. I just don't see a place for him to get a $150M+ contract.

Red Sox have A. Gonzalez
Yankees have Tex
Mets have Ike Davis
Phillies have Howard

The Angels are the only team that could afford to outbid the Reds that could possible have a need for a 1B in 2014. That's three years away, so who knows what their roster will look like then. And I think teams will be hesitant to pay a DH $25M a years for 5+ years.

All the other teams really don't have a financial advantage over the Reds. He might want a 7 year $175M contract, but I think he will have a harder time finding it than he thinks.

If the Reds are a contending team during the next three seasons, and make the playoffs at least once, I think they have a good chance of keeping him, even if he wants to test the market.

I really hope that does come to fruition...the only variable in your equation that I wonder about is Ike Davis...I think the Mets would upgrade from him given the opportunity.

Cedric
01-16-2011, 09:12 PM
I'm not so sure Votto will be gone in 2014, for the same reason why I think Pujols will stay with the Cardinals. I just don't see a place for him to get a $150M+ contract.

Red Sox have A. Gonzalez
Yankees have Tex
Mets have Ike Davis
Phillies have Howard

The Angels are the only team that could afford to outbid the Reds that could possible have a need for a 1B in 2014. That's three years away, so who knows what their roster will look like then. And I think teams will be hesitant to pay a DH $25M a years for 5+ years.

All the other teams really don't have a financial advantage over the Reds. He might want a 7 year $175M contract, but I think he will have a harder time finding it than he thinks.

If the Reds are a contending team during the next three seasons, and make the playoffs at least once, I think they have a good chance of keeping him, even if he wants to test the market.

I'm already predicting the Reds win 3 straight World titles and Joey signs for cheap to stay on a winner.

edabbs44
01-16-2011, 09:17 PM
I'm not so sure Votto will be gone in 2014, for the same reason why I think Pujols will stay with the Cardinals. I just don't see a place for him to get a $150M+ contract.

Red Sox have A. Gonzalez
Yankees have Tex
Mets have Ike Davis
Phillies have Howard

The Angels are the only team that could afford to outbid the Reds that could possible have a need for a 1B in 2014. That's three years away, so who knows what their roster will look like then. And I think teams will be hesitant to pay a DH $25M a years for 5+ years.

All the other teams really don't have a financial advantage over the Reds. He might want a 7 year $175M contract, but I think he will have a harder time finding it than he thinks.

If the Reds are a contending team during the next three seasons, and make the playoffs at least once, I think they have a good chance of keeping him, even if he wants to test the market.

Dodgers?

You know who also comes off the books in '15? Vernon Wells, after a 7 yr, $126MM contract.

TheNext44
01-16-2011, 09:28 PM
I really hope that does come to fruition...the only variable in your equation that I wonder about is Ike Davis...I think the Mets would upgrade from him given the opportunity.


Dodgers?

You know who also comes off the books in '15? Vernon Wells, after a 7 yr, $126MM contract.

All good points.

I'm just saying the big boys probably won't be bidding for Votto. The Dodgers and Blue Jays don't have much of a history of overpaying free agents or blowing other teams out of the water with outrageous contracts. The Reds may not even be favorites to sign him, but it will be a pretty level playing field. If the Reds are willing to pay fair market value for Votto then, they should have just as good a chance as any team.

HeatherC1212
01-16-2011, 10:14 PM
I love Hal McCoy, LOL :laugh:


And that’s what gets you a $38 million contract and an MVP trophy to put on your mantel, although knowing Joey Votto and his humble attitude, the trophy probably will end up in a box in his garage.

Matt700wlw
01-16-2011, 11:06 PM
This contract also makes him very tradable, if they so choose...


Walt's a smart man. I trust his judgement.

corkedbat
01-16-2011, 11:26 PM
Great deal for Joey. For the Reds? Meh.

I have seen and heard statements by Bruce, Dusty and others about Joey loving Cincy nad wanting to finish his career here and took them as lip service - being diplomatic. I have also seen JV quoted as saying that he owees it to himself and his family to see what is out there andthat he is not gonna cut any hoetown discounts (or something along those lines). I came away from those statements believing that he is intent on going on the market and maximize his than JV's tenure with the Reds probably has about 12-18 months left.

If you go into to negotiations like this from a management point of view you want to come away with at least a four=year deal. The fact that this is not 4yrs/$56-58M means that they either couldn't buy out a Free Agent deal at Market Price or they did offer and Joey turned them down. If they can't afford or Joey won't accept a decent offer for a year of free agency now, it's not gonna be any more likey three years from now when you're talking six or seven years.

The Reds may have saved a million or two, but may have just as easily overpaid by that much. In exchange, they trade the slight unpleasantness of a couple of arbitrations for a huge exposure in case of serious inkury. The team may have made some brownie points with this move with some fans with this move also. There is some cost certainty I suppoe. Maybe knowing exactly what he will make in 2012 & 2103 might even make him slightlymore attractive to the team you eventually deal him to if you decide to deal him before the trade deadline in 2012.

And make no mistake, barring a massive attack of philanthropy and civic pride, JV will be dealt. With the dearth of middle of the order bats in this system, the Reds cannot afford to let him walk without a return (not even considering a couple of draft picks). The only question is when?

This result has to tell Jocketty everything he needs to know about Joey's future with the Reds. While you want to keep him in a Reds jersey for as long as possible, you also owe it to the organization and fans to maximize the return.

If I'm Walt I start putting out feelers now and delicately exploring things. Toronto would be a great place to start, but I don't know that much about what is in their system.

The return of dealing him now as opposed to next offseason is probably not that big, so you hold onto him this year as long as you're in contention, but multiple years remaining on his contract probably means a much more significant return. There has to be tipping point when a team gives you what you think will be the best you can get and when that comes Walt needs to jump on it.

Captain Hook
01-16-2011, 11:35 PM
I'm not so sure Votto will be gone in 2014, for the same reason why I think Pujols will stay with the Cardinals. I just don't see a place for him to get a $150M+ contract.

Red Sox have A. Gonzalez
Yankees have Tex
Mets have Ike Davis
Phillies have Howard

The Angels are the only team that could afford to outbid the Reds that could possible have a need for a 1B in 2014. That's three years away, so who knows what their roster will look like then. And I think teams will be hesitant to pay a DH $25M a years for 5+ years.

All the other teams really don't have a financial advantage over the Reds. He might want a 7 year $175M contract, but I think he will have a harder time finding it than he thinks.

If the Reds are a contending team during the next three seasons, and make the playoffs at least once, I think they have a good chance of keeping him, even if he wants to test the market.

The Blue Jays will have some money to spend.They are likely the Reds biggest concern.

Will M
01-17-2011, 12:36 AM
The more I think about this deal the less happy I am. Not about the deal itself. It gives the team certainty for their budget & may save them some money if Votto continues his All Star play.

My unhappiness stems from the fact that I believe there is very little chance Votto is a Red for much longer. The team approached him about a long term deal & he turned them down. I have a tough time coming up with a reasonable scenario where he changes his mind in the next year or so. I have heard people trying to say Joey is slow & methodical, doesn't want to committ, etc. But take a step back folks & try to look at things a bit objectively. If Troy Tulowitzki (for example) had told the Rockies he only wanted to sign a deal that covered his arbitration years you would have said "There is no way he is staying in Colorado. No way." Why should you react differently to Votto's deal?

As to the "well. we'll have him for 3 more years" arguement I think this is faulty as well. If Votto is a goner the Reds need to look at how best to maximize his value to the team. as a small market team I doubt that is by paying him $38M for 3 years production, letting him walk after 2013 & getting two draft picks. Unless the team is looking like a World Series contender for 2012 & 2013 they will likely (IMO) do better moving him 1-2 years before he is goinmg to leave. The team would get the return in players/prospects plus free up salary.

Two days ago I would have guessed the chances of Votto being a Red in 2014 at 50-75%. Now I'd guess close to zero. Thats why the deal makes me unhappy.

Patrick Bateman
01-17-2011, 12:37 AM
I'm pretty sure Votto made it clear that he was not ready to commit to anyone at this point, meaning he wants to keep his options open. Reds would have probably had to pay above market rates to lock him in past this point. Votto is in a position to play where he wants and made it clear that he wants FMV. If the Reds still want him in 3 year times, they will likely have to pay top dollar.

All this contract is the Reds gambling that he will be heathly and continue to be good to great over the next 3 years. Nothing more than that.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 12:50 AM
The more I think about this deal the less happy I am. Not about the deal itself. It gives the team certainty for their budget & may save them some money if Votto continues his All Star play.

My unhappiness stems from the fact that I believe there is very little chance Votto is a Red for much longer. The team approached him about a long term deal & he turned them down. I have a tough time coming up with a reasonable scenario where he changes his mind in the next year or so. I have heard people trying to say Joey is slow & methodical, doesn't want to committ, etc. But take a step back folks & try to look at things a bit objectively. If Troy Tulowitzki (for example) had told the Rockies he only wanted to sign a deal that covered his arbitration years you would have said "There is no way he is staying in Colorado. No way." Why should you react differently to Votto's deal?

As to the "well. we'll have him for 3 more years" arguement I think this is faulty as well. If Votto is a goner the Reds need to look at how best to maximize his value to the team. as a small market team I doubt that is by paying him $38M for 3 years production, letting him walk after 2013 & getting two draft picks. Unless the team is looking like a World Series contender for 2012 & 2013 they will likely (IMO) do better moving him 1-2 years before he is goinmg to leave. The team would get the return in players/prospects plus free up salary.

Two days ago I would have guessed the chances of Votto being a Red in 2014 at 50-75%. Now I'd guess close to zero. Thats why the deal makes me unhappy.

I keep hearing that too, and I don't buy that myself. What evidence do I have to back that up...none. To me, apparently a pessimist, I hear a guy who is going to test the FA waters in 3 years who doesn't want to upset the natives in the process. And I don't hold that against Votto...if I were drafted by the Blue Jays, I'd be counting down the days till I could go elsewhere...no offense to anyone.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 12:58 AM
As someone who has been part of many contract negotiations, I respectfully disagree. The party providing the service/labor rarely takes well to "well, it's our money, take it or leave it" tactics. Votto may or may not pay the Reds back for their goodwill, but he most certainly would have remembered their perceived lack of loyalty if they hadn't signed him. This is a great deal for both sides and I am starting to believe Joey Votto will spend a long time in a Cincinnati uniform.

This post has troubled me all day.

You play the "I've negotiated contracts" card...but unless you are willing to go into detail I'm guessing it is apples and oranges compared to the Votto situation. Key point to remember as well...Votto is not free to go elsewhere.

If the Reds approach Votto saying, we are interested in signing you to a 4 or 5 year extension, all Votto has to do is say no, and the Reds can go year to year. As stated, there is a respectful way to handle year to year deals and that is the way I preferred this play out if the 4-5 yr deal isn't reached.

Reading your post I infer that you think if the Reds approach Votto for a 4-5 yr deal and he declines, he would be insulted if they don't go 3 years with him. I don't think that is the case.

corkedbat
01-17-2011, 01:48 AM
I'm not so sure Votto will be gone in 2014, for the same reason why I think Pujols will stay with the Cardinals. I just don't see a place for him to get a $150M+ contract.

Red Sox have A. Gonzalez
Yankees have Tex
Mets have Ike Davis
Phillies have Howard

The Angels are the only team that could afford to outbid the Reds that could possible have a need for a 1B in 2014. That's three years away, so who knows what their roster will look like then. And I think teams will be hesitant to pay a DH $25M a years for 5+ years.

All the other teams really don't have a financial advantage over the Reds. He might want a 7 year $175M contract, but I think he will have a harder time finding it than he thinks.

If the Reds are a contending team during the next three seasons, and make the playoffs at least once, I think they have a good chance of keeping him, even if he wants to test the market.

Right off the top of my head, I'd add Texas, the Dodgers, the Tigers, the Orioles, the Giants, the White Sox, the Cubs, the Cards and possibly the Nationals to that group. All are teams with more payroll space and may be looking for a big bat in three years.

I hope the Reds do find a away to retain him, but to do so, they will need to find the revenue streams to grow the payroll beyond the $100M mark. first, IMO.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 02:11 AM
Right off the top of my head, I'd add Texas, the Dodgers, the Tigers, the Orioles, the Giants, the White Sox, the Cubs, the Cards and possibly the Nationals to that group. All are teams with more payroll space and may be looking for a big bat in three years.

I hope the Reds do find a away to retain him, but to do so, they will need to find the revenue streams to grow the payroll beyond the $100M mark. first, IMO.

None of those teams really are in a better position financially to sign Votto than the Reds, if the Reds are willing to offer fair market value for him. All of those teams, with the exception of the Nationals, don't have a history of overpaying for free agents.

Sure most of them have signed players to big, long term contracts, and some turned out to be dumb deals, but none of them were for over fair market value at the time. In fact, most of those teams, if not all of them, have lost out on free agents because they weren't willing to overpay.

Besides the Blue Jays, none of those teams have eveer had a $20M a year player, and I don't think the Jays are that excited to try that again. Really the only teams that could offer Votto a $20+ a season long term contract already have 1B locked up well beyond 2014.

I'm not saying it will be easy for the Reds to sign Votto if he becomes a free agent, just that it won't be impossible.

Ron Madden
01-17-2011, 02:25 AM
None of those teams really are in a better position financially to sign Votto than the Reds, if the Reds are willing to offer fair market value for him. All of those teams, with the exception of the Nationals, don't have a history of overpaying for free agents.

Sure most of them have signed players to big, long term contracts, and some turned out to be dumb deals, but none of them were for over fair market value at the time. In fact, most of those teams, if not all of them, have lost out on free agents because they weren't willing to overpay.

Besides the Blue Jays, none of those teams have eveer had a $20M a year player, and I don't think the Jays are that excited to try that again. Really the only teams that could offer Votto a $20+ a season long term contract already have 1B locked up well beyond 2014.

I'm not saying it will be easy for the Reds to sign Votto if he becomes a free agent, just that it won't be impossible.

After reading about this three year extension I wouldn't bet on Votto signing another deal with the Reds.

Votto could sign another contract with the Reds but I doubt it.

membengal
01-17-2011, 03:20 AM
Any chance people can just enjoy the next year or three with Votto as the anchor with a good Reds team as opposed to worrying endlessly about how things will look in 2014?

remdog
01-17-2011, 03:56 AM
Yonder Alonso just became a lot more important in the Reds' future plans.

Rem

redsfandan
01-17-2011, 07:06 AM
None of those teams really are in a better position financially to sign Votto than the Reds, if the Reds are willing to offer fair market value for him. All of those teams, with the exception of the Nationals, don't have a history of overpaying for free agents.

Sure most of them have signed players to big, long term contracts, and some turned out to be dumb deals, but none of them were for over fair market value at the time. In fact, most of those teams, if not all of them, have lost out on free agents because they weren't willing to overpay.

Besides the Blue Jays, none of those teams have eveer had a $20M a year player, and I don't think the Jays are that excited to try that again. Really the only teams that could offer Votto a $20+ a season long term contract already have 1B locked up well beyond 2014.

I'm not saying it will be easy for the Reds to sign Votto if he becomes a free agent, just that it won't be impossible.
Next, you sound like you're in denial. Really.

Will the Reds be in a great financial position to extend him? For that they'll need a big bump in payroll. But, some of those other teams already have bigger payrolls than the Reds. A few by alot.

A history of overpaying for free agents? Well, do the Reds have that kind of history? Last time they really did that was Cordero and that was a different gm. You can say that none of those other teams have done it if you really want to but keep in mind that all it takes is a gm on the hot seat.

Most importantly, have the Reds ever had a player make $20M/yr? Are you really sure that the Reds will be able to pay any player that much in the near future? Cuz I'm skeptical that they can. And I don't think they should either. There comes a point where you're paying a player so much that it's risky. There have been a number of examples that noone should have to recite.

Joey will turn 30 at the end of this contract. And giving a LTC that averages $20M-$25/yr to a 1st baseman at that age doesn't make much sense to me.

Yonder Alonso just became a lot more important in the Reds' future plans.

Rem
Yep.

PuffyPig
01-17-2011, 07:08 AM
None of those teams really are in a better position financially to sign Votto than the Reds, if the Reds are willing to offer fair market value for him. All of those teams, with the exception of the Nationals, don't have a history of overpaying for free agents.

Sure most of them have signed players to big, long term contracts, and some turned out to be dumb deals, but none of them were for over fair market value at the time. In fact, most of those teams, if not all of them, have lost out on free agents because they weren't willing to overpay.



Barry Zito says :wave:

oneupper
01-17-2011, 08:19 AM
Yonder Alonso just became a lot more important in the Reds' future plans.

Rem

I'm not seeing Yonder's situation so clear. He's going to be 24 in April, and I'd think its going to be tough to keep him "in waiting" for 2 1/2- 3 more years.
And add to that the fact that he has a major league contract.

Yonder's still trade bait, IMO and the 2014 First baseman for the REDs is going to be ???, as in we don't know yet.

edabbs44
01-17-2011, 08:38 AM
I'm not seeing Yonder's situation so clear. He's going to be 24 in April, and I'd think its going to be tough to keep him "in waiting" for 2 1/2- 3 more years.
And add to that the fact that he has a major league contract.

Yonder's still trade bait, IMO and the 2014 First baseman for the REDs is going to be ???, as in we don't know yet.

My feelings as well. The 2014 1B might be a junior at Texas right now for all we know.

Alonso is trade bait, still, and Votto will likely be treated like Greinke was the past few years.

lollipopcurve
01-17-2011, 08:59 AM
My feelings as well. The 2014 1B might be a junior at Texas right now for all we know.

Alonso is trade bait, still, and Votto will likely be treated like Greinke was the past few years.

I don't think they'll deal Alonso now that they know they won't get a long-term discount from Votto. Alonso cannot be optioned to AAA after this season. That puts him on a collision course with Votto for 2012, leaving the team 2011 to get as good a read on Alonso as they can, via his last 500-600 ABs in AAA. After 2011, they'll make a call, Votto or Alonso. And my sense is that if they like Alonso's progress, they'll take his 6 years of control, including some cheap contracts, over 2 years of Votto at close to 30 million. The cost certainty they've got with Votto is a plus not only for the Reds, but also for any team that may want to acquire him, and dealing him with 2 years left on his contract will bring back more than if they wait longer.

PuffyPig
01-17-2011, 09:05 AM
Alonso is trade bait, still, and Votto will likely be treated like Greinke was the past few years.

Assuming the Greinke comment is true, I doubt the Reds trade Alonso now, especially since I'm guessing the Reds view his potential value to them as higher than his trade value is right now.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 09:23 AM
Barry Zito says :wave:

Zito wasn't an overpay. Just a dumb signing. He was a former Cy Young winner with a strong track record. I thought it was dumb signing at the time, but only because of the years. I don't think anyone predicted that Zito would have collapsed like he did in the very first year of the contract.

And his top salary is $18M a season. My point is that only a few teams can offer Votto more than the Reds can, only a few teams can afford a $20M+ player and they all will not need a 1B in 2014.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 09:31 AM
Next, you sound like you're in denial. Really.

Will the Reds be in a great financial position to extend him? For that they'll need a big bump in payroll. But, some of those other teams already have bigger payrolls than the Reds. A few by alot.

A history of overpaying for free agents? Well, do the Reds have that kind of history? Last time they really did that was Cordero and that was a different gm. You can say that none of those other teams have done it if you really want to but keep in mind that all it takes is a gm on the hot seat.

Most importantly, have the Reds ever had a player make $20M/yr? Are you really sure that the Reds will be able to pay any player that much in the near future? Cuz I'm skeptical that they can. And I don't think they should either. There comes a point where you're paying a player so much that it's risky. There have been a number of examples that noone should have to recite.

Joey will turn 30 at the end of this contract. And giving a LTC that averages $20M-$25/yr to a 1st baseman at that age doesn't make much sense to me.

Yep.

I'm saying that I don't think he will be able to get a $20M+ long term contract (or whatever that translates into in 2014) in 2014. Only a handful of teams can handle that, and none will need a 1B in 2014. It's the same problem Pujols has right now, and why I am confident he signs a reasonable contract with the Cards. He knows that if he becomes a free agent next year, he won't get an Arod type contract since the only teams that can offer him that, won't need him.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 09:36 AM
One more crucial point. Alonso is not Votto's replacement. Bruce is more likely to be.

If the Reds lose Votto, they will not need to replace a 1B, they will need to replace a 6-7 WAR, MVP caliber player.

Johnny Footstool
01-17-2011, 09:43 AM
One more crucial point. Alonso is not Votto's replacement. Bruce is more likely to be.

If the Reds lose Votto, they will not need to replace a 1B, they will need to replace a 6-7 WAR, MVP caliber player.

Bruce isn't Votto's replacement, either. Bruce is a constant.

Edskin
01-17-2011, 09:45 AM
I think people are overreacting to what this deal "means" in the longterm. Perhaps I have on rose-colored glasses here, but this is my take:

--Eliminates the black cloud of arbitration over the next few years. We know the deal for the next three years; Votto can focus on playing and the Reds can focus on figuring out how to keep him longterm of how best to maximize his value.

--I do believe in the "good faith" thing in this case because I believe Votto is the kind of guy who would potentially reward that faith.

--Like many others have theorized, I seriously doubt Votto has any clue what he wants to do three years from now; this deal allows all parties to exhale for the next three years and see how things play out.

In my mind, this really shouldn't even be a major thought over the next two seasons. Walt should focus on building the best team he can; after two years we'll see what we've accomplished and where we stand as a franchise. We will then have an entire off-season/year to decide what to do with Votto. If Joey makes it clear he wants out, then we can focus on dealing me.

Me thinks a lot of this will have to do with how good the Reds are on the field over the next couple of seasons. I'm willing to take a wait and see approach before really judging this deal.

Ghosts of 1990
01-17-2011, 09:46 AM
People who say that the Reds are hoping for a return on good faith in a few years have it right. Gives a window for the club to negotiate while Votto is being paid somewhat fairly. I don't necessarily think anything is going to come to fruition, but that is a debate for another day.

If you want to know what the Reds are thinking on how this might play out--I would watch how they handle Alonso.

Always Red
01-17-2011, 09:59 AM
I think people are overreacting to what this deal "means" in the longterm. Perhaps I have on rose-colored glasses here, but this is my take:

--Eliminates the black cloud of arbitration over the next few years. We know the deal for the next three years; Votto can focus on playing and the Reds can focus on figuring out how to keep him longterm of how best to maximize his value.

--I do believe in the "good faith" thing in this case because I believe Votto is the kind of guy who would potentially reward that faith.

--Like many others have theorized, I seriously doubt Votto has any clue what he wants to do three years from now; this deal allows all parties to exhale for the next three years and see how things play out.

In my mind, this really shouldn't even be a major thought over the next two seasons. Walt should focus on building the best team he can; after two years we'll see what we've accomplished and where we stand as a franchise. We will then have an entire off-season/year to decide what to do with Votto. If Joey makes it clear he wants out, then we can focus on dealing me.

Me thinks a lot of this will have to do with how good the Reds are on the field over the next couple of seasons. I'm willing to take a wait and see approach before really judging this deal.

I agree with all you posted, especially the 3 years of seeing how things play out.

I don't have any expectations that any of the Reds young nucleus will stay intact for the next 10 years or so- the business of baseball just does not allow for that anymore.

So the negativity from Fay (especially) and some here is lost on me. I don't expect Votto or Bruce or Cueto or Wood or anyone else to be here 8-10 years from now. I do expect the Reds to continue to choose wisely and develop young players like they did these guys, and have players ready to step in when it's time for this group to move on.

You just never know- in 3 years we as fans might be ready to move on from Votto and Bruce (as much as that sounds like heresy right now); chances are very slim that they both will be Hall of Famers.

PuffyPig
01-17-2011, 10:02 AM
Zito wasn't an overpay. Just a dumb signing. He was a former Cy Young winner with a strong track record. I thought it was dumb signing at the time, but only because of the years. I don't think anyone predicted that Zito would have collapsed like he did in the very first year of the contract.

And his top salary is $18M a season. My point is that only a few teams can offer Votto more than the Reds can, only a few teams can afford a $20M+ player and they all will not need a 1B in 2014.


Firstly, giving Zito $126M was a huge overpayment. You can say giving him $18M per season was OK, they just should have done it for 2-3 years. You have to look at every contract in terms of total dollars and years. And $126M was a huge overpayemnt for a pitcher who was already regressing. His xFIP in his last year with the A's was 5.16. He had already beginning to K less batters, walk more and give up more FB's. His 4 years with the Giants haven't been largely different than his years with the A's when you look at those stats.

Many, many teams could offer Votto more than the Reds can. And pretty much the rest can offer just as much. And who knows what teams needs are in 2014. Everyone said the BoSox didn't need a 1B and look what happened when Gonzalez became available. And they paid through the nose to get him in a trade.

camisadelgolf
01-17-2011, 10:06 AM
I wonder if things could become awkward between Votto and Bruce. What Votto will likely make in the last year of this contract, Bruce won't earn even in the last year of his seven-year deal. In 2014, we could see Votto earning more than twice as much as Bruce.

remdog
01-17-2011, 10:11 AM
I'm not seeing Yonder's situation so clear. He's going to be 24 in April, and I'd think its going to be tough to keep him "in waiting" for 2 1/2- 3 more years.
And add to that the fact that he has a major league contract.

Yonder's still trade bait, IMO and the 2014 First baseman for the REDs is going to be ???, as in we don't know yet.

I agree with everything you wrote. Still, I think Yonder is now more valuable to the Reds than he was last Friday.

I don't think that Votto will be traded early in '11 but anytime near the July trading deadline and going forward I think it just became a bigger possibility. If Yonder shows any ability with the stick it just increases the chance that Joey can 'goey'.

Rem

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 10:18 AM
I wonder if things could become awkward between Votto and Bruce. What Votto will likely make in the last year of this contract, Bruce won't earn even in the last year of his seven-year deal. In 2014, we could see Votto earning more than twice as much as Bruce.

Things could change but Bruce does have 60 Million or so coming to him, and he seems like a guy who is perfectly content knowing that. Some, I think Rick, has the quote posted where Bruce says he plans on leaving money on the table. He put his money where his mouth is almost literally, in that it is not all about the money to him. So I don't see Bruce getting too worked up, especially since he is young enough that he will have a second go round for a LTC when he is 30-31.

Will M
01-17-2011, 10:35 AM
I don't think they'll deal Alonso now that they know they won't get a long-term discount from Votto. Alonso cannot be optioned to AAA after this season. That puts him on a collision course with Votto for 2012, leaving the team 2011 to get as good a read on Alonso as they can, via his last 500-600 ABs in AAA. After 2011, they'll make a call, Votto or Alonso. And my sense is that if they like Alonso's progress, they'll take his 6 years of control, including some cheap contracts, over 2 years of Votto at close to 30 million. The cost certainty they've got with Votto is a plus not only for the Reds, but also for any team that may want to acquire him, and dealing him with 2 years left on his contract will bring back more than if they wait longer.


I agree with everything you wrote. Still, I think Yonder is now more valuable to the Reds than he was last Friday.

I don't think that Votto will be traded early in '11 but anytime near the July trading deadline and going forward I think it just became a bigger possibility. If Yonder shows any ability with the stick it just increases the chance that Joey can 'goey'.

Rem

I agree with both of you. The Reds will be in a tough situation very soon. Alonso will be ready to be a cheap productive 1rst baseman. If they trade him because they have Votto then there is no one in the system when Votto leaves. In an ideal world Votto signs an extension after 2011 or 2012. If he won't then the team deals him after 2012 for prospects rather than waiting one more year & getting draft picks. However, what happens to Alonso in the 2nd half of 2011 & 2012? AAA in 2011 & pinch hitter in 2012? I can see the team keeping him in AAA for 2011 but cannot see him sitting on the bench in 2012. I think Alonso will be ready by mid season if he isn't ready now. It seems a waste of his talent to hold him back until 2013. IMO something will give before opening day 2012: either Votto signs an extension and Alonso is traded or Votto is traded.

Hoosier Red
01-17-2011, 10:46 AM
More than any "good will" being brought forth, it simply reduces any good will being eroded by the arbitration process. They can always look at extending the contract in order to guarantee Votto more money in the long term and maybe make the short run more palatable to the Reds.

I imagine, they will approach Votto at the end of each of the next two seasons to discuss the parameters for an extension.

The fact that they've already guaranteed him say $29 million in the final two years may make it more reasonable for him to renegotiate to $26 million for those two years with a $20 million contract in his first FA year.

This doesn't mean much to this year's budget, but it will set a cornerstone for the next two year's payrolls, and it's easier to negotiate from $15 million to $13 million (while guaranteeing an extra year or three) rather than having to start the process over again each year.

reds1869
01-17-2011, 10:55 AM
More than any "good will" being brought forth, it simply reduces any good will being eroded by the arbitration process. They can always look at extending the contract in order to guarantee Votto more money in the long term and maybe make the short run more palatable to the Reds.

This. Having been part of arbitration hearings (sorry, kaldaniels, I can't go into detail) it is just an unbelievably nasty situation, no matter how friendly the situation is otherwise. Not spending your "bargaining bullets" in arbitration is a good move.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 11:02 AM
This. Having been part of arbitration hearings (sorry, kaldaniels, I can't go into detail) it is just an unbelievably nasty situation, no matter how friendly the situation is otherwise. Not spending your "bargaining bullets" in arbitration is a good move.

Just realize I never would want to go to arbitration, and you are correct that it is nasty. Just offer him a fair 1 year deal and be done with it. For instance if they offered 9-10 million for 2011...I think that would be a quick and harmless process. If Joey decides to play hardball with a market value 1 year deal...that is a whole new issue.

reds1869
01-17-2011, 11:04 AM
Just realize I never would want to go to arbitration, and you are correct that it is nasty. Just offer him a fair 1 year deal and be done with it. For instance if they offered 9-10 million for 2011...I think that would be a quick and harmless process. If Joey decides to play hardball with a market value 1 year deal...that is a whole new issue.

That I can agree with. I think they are, in addition to the other things stated, beefing up his trade value. A team would be quicker to pull the trigger if they knew what they would owe. This also, of course, gives the Reds cost certainty for the next three years.

Razor Shines
01-17-2011, 11:13 AM
That I can agree with. I think they are, in addition to the other things stated, beefing up his trade value. A team would be quicker to pull the trigger if they knew what they would owe. This also, of course, gives the Reds cost certainty for the next three years.

That I can see.

jojo
01-17-2011, 11:51 AM
I don't think anyone predicted that Zito would have collapsed like he did in the very first year of the contract.

Zito was not a difficult arm to predict (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1212685&postcount=13)...


This is a sincere question: by what metrics is he a worthy of being one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball? Guys often get paid for what they have done in the past but really, its important to value them for what they'll do over the course of their contract. Clearly Zito of the last three years isn't the same guy as the Zito of his first three seasons. He stills eats innings and his ERAs look good but his peripherals are getting pretty scary-especially for someone reportedly demanding 6-7 years at $15M per. Basically, his xFIPS have been steadily climbing, his K/G has been trending downward and his BB/G has been trending up. The latter two are death knells for a guy with flyball tendencies (in any park). Right now xFIP is generally excepted as the best predictor of future performance for a pitcher. Zito's last year was an icky 5.46 (mlb average for starters was: 4.60). Importantly, Zito hasn't been above average relative to the league for the last three seasons using xFIP as an indicator.

So, IMHO, its a scary proposition to commit so much for so long to a guy whose peripherals seem to scream will be in a decline phase from day one of the contract.

REDREAD
01-17-2011, 11:53 AM
It also saves time and good will which are both of substantial value as well.

Yes, I agree completely.
Also, as someone else said. The Reds have to carefully manage their budget.
Having a predictable cost for Votto might let them spend money a little bit more freely.

People were bemoaning that we missed out on some LF like DeJesus, etc that were traded early in the offseason. Well, Walt had about 4 pretty big arb eligible contracts hanging over his head. That limits his ability to make moves.
It sure would've stunk if the Reds picked up Willingham, then lost a few arb cases and had to dump a player to balance the books.

This is a solid move. I'm glad the Reds are no longer negotiating like John Allen. I think a lot of people truly underestimate the value of goodwill in the workplace too. When the Reds took Casey to arb over a relatively tiny amount, he sure remembered that and demanded top dollar later..

REDREAD
01-17-2011, 12:12 PM
I'm not seeing Yonder's situation so clear. He's going to be 24 in April, and I'd think its going to be tough to keep him "in waiting" for 2 1/2- 3 more years.
And add to that the fact that he has a major league contract.

Yonder's still trade bait, IMO and the 2014 First baseman for the REDs is going to be ???, as in we don't know yet.

I agree.. Now that Votto has been signed for 3 years, I think Yonder is more likely to be shipped out.

I predict Votto will be here for the next 3 years (barring a disaster in 2014.. maybe then he will be sent to a contender).. That's just Walt's style. He builds around some star players as opposed to trading them for prospects.

And I am going to enjoy Votto for the next 3 years.. I'm not worried about the 1b in 2015 more than I'm worried about the closer, 3b, etc.
It doesn't seem wise to keep Yonder in the minors forever (even if that was possible) as insurance at 1b.

If Yonder is healthy this year and puts up good numbers, I predict he's traded before the end of the year.

Hoosier Red
01-17-2011, 12:29 PM
Just realize I never would want to go to arbitration, and you are correct that it is nasty. Just offer him a fair 1 year deal and be done with it. For instance if they offered 9-10 million for 2011...I think that would be a quick and harmless process. If Joey decides to play hardball with a market value 1 year deal...that is a whole new issue.

Here's what I don't understand from your side Kal, what's the positive in this. Next year they'd have to offer him a contract of around $13 million to avoid arbitration, and then they'd probably have to offer him a contract around $20 million to avoid arbitration(where he'd be able to use Pujols, Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez, Texeira's contracts as comps."

This way, they essentially committed to him, locked in the price for relatively fair value this year and probably next, and are significantly undervalue in the third year. If he plays well this year, he'll have some motivation to renegotiate this year to bring that third year's contract up closer to Fielder and Pujols territory.

The only thing the Reds gave away was the chance to cut bait if he under performs. That risk is acceptable in my opinion.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 12:33 PM
Here's what I don't understand from your side Kal, what's the positive in this. Next year they'd have to offer him a contract of around $13 million to avoid arbitration, and then they'd probably have to offer him a contract around $20 million to avoid arbitration(where he'd be able to use Pujols, Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez, Texeira's contracts as comps."

This way, they essentially committed to him, locked in the price for relatively fair value this year and probably next, and are significantly undervalue in the third year. If he plays well this year, he'll have some motivation to renegotiate this year to bring that third year's contract up closer to Fielder and Pujols territory.

The only thing the Reds gave away was the chance to cut bait if he under performs. That risk is acceptable in my opinion.

Rick projected his year by year salarys to wind up around 36 Million...plus a bit for incentives. So I really think the money would wind up about the same.

gonelong
01-17-2011, 12:33 PM
The signing of Votto was a win-win-win IMO. Votto gets financial security. The Reds have cost certainty for 3 years on and MVP caliber player, further solidifying the change in culture, and the Reds teammates have a "foundation" guy they can look around the locker room and know they will see for a few years.

Votto gets to see if the Reds are serious about a consistent winner. The Reds get a leg up on working longer-term deal with Votto without needing to paper-cut him each year in arbitration, and Reds teammates get a relaxed/focused 1B.

The fans get an NL MVP to root on for the next 2.5-3 years.

I'm happy all the way around with this one, and especially in addition to the Bruce deal.

GL

Will M
01-17-2011, 12:41 PM
I agree.. Now that Votto has been signed for 3 years, I think Yonder is more likely to be shipped out.

I predict Votto will be here for the next 3 years (barring a disaster in 2014.. maybe then he will be sent to a contender).. That's just Walt's style. He builds around some star players as opposed to trading them for prospects.

And I am going to enjoy Votto for the next 3 years.. I'm not worried about the 1b in 2015 more than I'm worried about the closer, 3b, etc.
It doesn't seem wise to keep Yonder in the minors forever (even if that was possible) as insurance at 1b.

If Yonder is healthy this year and puts up good numbers, I predict he's traded before the end of the year.

1. your dates are wrong. Votto is a free agent after 2013 not 2014.
2. you may be right. the Reds could trade Alonso, keep Votto through 2013 & then worry about getting a replacement 1rst baseman later. generic 1rst baseman are fairly available on the open market each year. its a LOT harder to find a SS or a catcher via free agency than a 1rst baseman or left fielder.
3. all that said lets look at Alonso: if he isn't called up until late 2011 then the team should control him for six more years (2012-2017). He would be cheap for 2012, 2013 & 2014 then arbitration eligible for 2015, 2016 & 2017. IMO that is a LOT to simply trade away for a small market team like the Reds. The team would have to pay a fair market price for bat on the open market starting in 2014 (after Votto is gone). Alonso could very well be an 850 OPS bat during his Reds tenure.
4. What the team does with Votto & to a lesser extent with Alonso is a HUGE issue for the Reds. It ranges from an ideal of signing Votto to a reasonable LTC vs a disaster of trading Alonso away for a poor return, letting Votto leave for draft pick compensation after 2013 & then signing some cheapo to play 1rst base.

RichRed
01-17-2011, 12:57 PM
The signing of Votto was a win-win-win IMO. Votto gets financial security. The Reds have cost certainty for 3 years on and MVP caliber player, further solidifying the change in culture, and the Reds teammates have a "foundation" guy they can look around the locker room and know they will see for a few years.

Votto gets to see if the Reds are serious about a consistent winner. The Reds get a leg up on working longer-term deal with Votto without needing to paper-cut him each year in arbitration, and Reds teammates get a relaxed/focused 1B.

The fans get an NL MVP to root on for the next 2.5-3 years.

I'm happy all the way around with this one, and especially in addition to the Bruce deal.

GL

Pretty well sums it up for me.

Razor Shines
01-17-2011, 12:57 PM
I agree.. Now that Votto has been signed for 3 years, I think Yonder is more likely to be shipped out.

I predict Votto will be here for the next 3 years (barring a disaster in 2014.. maybe then he will be sent to a contender).. That's just Walt's style. He builds around some star players as opposed to trading them for prospects.

And I am going to enjoy Votto for the next 3 years.. I'm not worried about the 1b in 2015 more than I'm worried about the closer, 3b, etc.
It doesn't seem wise to keep Yonder in the minors forever (even if that was possible) as insurance at 1b.

If Yonder is healthy this year and puts up good numbers, I predict he's traded before the end of the year.

'13 is the last year of this deal, right? I think if Alonzo isn't traded soon then more than likely they're going to look to move Votto sometime in '12. Or I should say if the right deal comes along they'll trade him and if not actively look to move him in '13. Luckily they'll be able to have somewhat of a good idea of what they have in Alonzo after this season.

Roy Tucker
01-17-2011, 01:08 PM
The signing of Votto was a win-win-win IMO. Votto gets financial security. The Reds have cost certainty for 3 years on and MVP caliber player, further solidifying the change in culture, and the Reds teammates have a "foundation" guy they can look around the locker room and know they will see for a few years.

Votto gets to see if the Reds are serious about a consistent winner. The Reds get a leg up on working longer-term deal with Votto without needing to paper-cut him each year in arbitration, and Reds teammates get a relaxed/focused 1B.

The fans get an NL MVP to root on for the next 2.5-3 years.

I'm happy all the way around with this one, and especially in addition to the Bruce deal.

GL

Yup.

:thumbup:

jojo
01-17-2011, 01:40 PM
The signing of Votto was a win-win-win IMO. Votto gets financial security. The Reds have cost certainty for 3 years on and MVP caliber player, further solidifying the change in culture, and the Reds teammates have a "foundation" guy they can look around the locker room and know they will see for a few years.

I think this culture stuff is overblown. Its not like the Reds were going to nontender Votto and buying out his arb years doesn't preclude trading him.



The fans get an NL MVP to root on for the next 2.5-3 years.

They already could've anticipated that.

Griffey012
01-17-2011, 01:47 PM
Does anyone else not want to see Votto in a Reds uni after this contract is up? I love the guy in a Reds uni, but I do not want to see the Reds paying anyone $20 mil a year. Especially at the 1B position. It is easier to fill 1B with a reasonable player than filling any other position on the field. In 2014 I am willing to bet money I would rather be paying Jay 20 million than Joey.

I am gonna enjoy seeing Joey at 1B for the next 3 seasons, but I will not be torn up if he is not here past 3 seasons, because if he is not going to give a hometown discount, it is probably not in our best interests.

medford
01-17-2011, 02:02 PM
For those that think you can keep Yonder around until then seeing as he'll be cheap, I don't think it would be a wise move to keep both Alonso & votto on the roster in '12 & '13. Yonder can't play LF (or anywhere else) and is barely passable at 1b right now. Votto has worked hard to become a pretty solid first baseman defensively, and either can't or perhaps won't move to LF to open up a spot for Yonder (or perhaps the team hasn't asked him or doesn't want him to).

Take away the 12 pitchers and backup/tandem catcher and there's only 4 spots on the bench. One of those spots has to be able to play SS/middle infield defense, 2 more need to be able to play outfield defense, and assuming Scott Rolen is still here thru that time frame, some one's got to be able to play 3b at least part of the time.

Perhaps there's some room to intermingle those roles and create a spot for Yonder, but having a guy limited strictly to backup 1b, behind a guy that you want in there as many days as possible and is better defensively seems like a poor use of the 25 man squad for 2 years. Assuming good health, and continued success for Votto, there'd only be room for about 1 start every 2-3 weeks for Yonder. That's like 10-20 starts a season. throw in a regular pinch hitting appearance, that's about 200 at bats tops for a guy with litle defensive ability, let alone defensive flexability.

Barring a long term injury that would put one or the other on the shelf next year, one of the 2 will likely be gone from the organization by opening day, 2012. As much as I'd love to have Votto here for the next 10 season, as much as I enjoy watching his every at bat, next offseason, someone is going to fall short in the Alber Pujols sweepstakes, if he even makes it to the free agent market. Someone is going to want Albert Pujols like production in their lineup, and will like the certaintity in Joey's contract and may be willing to overpay the Reds for his services, or at least pay more than you'd expect from his Type A status and the draft pick compensation. Votto would certainly fetch more ML ready talent on the trade market than Yonder. For a team that looks to have the pitching to contend the playoffs over the next 5+ seasons, cashing in on Votto's trade value next offseason, and moving Yonder to 1b may be the best long term option for this club.

camisadelgolf
01-17-2011, 02:06 PM
Yonder can't play LF (or anywhere else) and is barely passable at 1b right now.
What's your basis for that? I've seen him play first, and I think he's more than passable. On top of that, he's apparently improving. We're talking about a guy who has spent less than three years as a professional baseball player.

medford
01-17-2011, 02:14 PM
What's your basis for that? I've seen him play first, and I think he's more than passable. On top of that, he's apparently improving. We're talking about a guy who has spent less than three years as a professional baseball player.

Most of the reports I've seen. I'm not saying he can't get better, Votto is light year's better defensively at 1b than he was when he first got to the majors. When he first got to the majors, I'd say Votto was ahead of where Yonder is now, but worked to become gold glove worthy down on the corner. I don't know if Yonder can improve to that rate, but he can improve from where he's at now, and be a fine defensive 1b in his own right. I guess my main point was, you're not going to bring Yonder in to play 1b as a defensive replacement late in the game, at least not for Votto. If Votto has first base covered, and is playing 140+ starts a season, there's not much room for a guy (Yonder) that can't help anywhere else defensively. In the AL, no big deal as you don't need as many double switches or as much use of your bench as you do in the NL. Having both Yonder & Joey on the same roster, over an extended period, would really limit the reds options late in games. Yonder would be good for 1 pinch hit a night, and not much else. At least Frasier and company could play a couple different spots, double switch into a couple different spots, etc.. He may not have the bat that Yonder has, but he gives you more flexability off the bench.

The on top of that, if Yonder becomes you key pinch hitter, for tight late game situations, the oppossing manager is likely to reserve his left handed specialist to match up against him, which is going to make Yonder's role all that more difficult to be successful in.

gonelong
01-17-2011, 02:39 PM
I think this culture stuff is overblown. Its not like the Reds were going to nontender Votto and buying out his arb years doesn't preclude trading him.

It's overblown if the culture doesn't materialize with benefits. If it does, it's being drastically understated.

Culture without talent is useless. Culture with talent is not. You can make exponential use of the talents within an organization if you have the culture to do so. Just depends.

I have experienced culture shifts first hand. You don't put your blood, sweat, tears, heart and soul into enterprises where the management doesn't do the same. Culture change doesn't happen overnight, it takes time, and consistent leadership.

Management is showing a commitment here, one brush stroke at a time. After 10 brush strokes you don't have the Mona Lisa, but you have to make them to get there.


They already could've anticipated that.

The Reds got "engaged" to Votto instead of continuing to date him. There is a difference, and the guys in the clubhouse know it, and I think most in the stands do as well.

GL

redsfandan
01-17-2011, 02:53 PM
Does anyone else not want to see Votto in a Reds uni after this contract is up? I love the guy in a Reds uni, but I do not want to see the Reds paying anyone $20 mil a year. Especially at the 1B position. It is easier to fill 1B with a reasonable player than filling any other position on the field.

I don't want to see the Reds pay $20M+/yr to anyone. And I don't think I will. I think that big of a contract would be a problem for the Reds payroll. And I think it's just a matter of time before another team is paying Votto that much.

I'm actually ok with the contract. Yes, it avoids bad blood from arbitration proceedings and provides cost certainty for both the Reds and potential trading partners. On the flip side no FA years bought out. So, I'm not thrilled but it's still a net positive. I'd love to see Votto stick around and will be glad to have him for however much longer he's here. Although I'm also realistic about the long term. There's a decent chance that Bruce does play his entire career with the Reds. But not many players do that anymore no matter how much you want them to. Sure, there's a chance that Votto is extended in a couple years. Expecting it to happen is just preparing yourself for a letdown.



The Reds got "engaged" to Votto instead of continuing to date him. There is a difference, and the guys in the clubhouse know it, and I think most in the stands do as well.

GL
Hardly. You're fooling yourself if you believe that.

jojo
01-17-2011, 03:07 PM
It's overblown if the culture doesn't materialize with benefits. If it does, it's being drastically understated.

Culture without talent is useless. Culture with talent is not. You can make exponential use of the talents within an organization if you have the culture to do so. Just depends.

I have experienced culture shifts first hand. You don't put your blood, sweat, tears, heart and soul into enterprises where the management doesn't do the same. Culture change doesn't happen overnight, it takes time, and consistent leadership.

Management is showing a commitment here, one brush stroke at a time. After 10 brush strokes you don't have the Mona Lisa, but you have to make them to get there.

If culture has truly changed by this contract then how does it differ from the contracts to Phillips, Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn during the pre-jocketty Reds? Does this signal that the Reds are no longer willing to buy out free agent years?

Like I said, this "culture" stuff is overblown.


The Reds got "engaged" to Votto instead of continuing to date him. There is a difference, and the guys in the clubhouse know it, and I think most in the stands do as well.

GL

The Reds controlled him over the years of this deal. Nothing has changed other than they eliminated the ambiguity concerning what they're going to pay him. The above analogy simply isn't accurate.

In other words, the Reds said, you know that car you're driving for the next three years? You're driving it for the next three years.

HeatherC1212
01-17-2011, 03:12 PM
Any chance people can just enjoy the next year or three with Votto as the anchor with a good Reds team as opposed to worrying endlessly about how things will look in 2014?

From the looks of this thread I believe the answer to your question is no. :(

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 03:13 PM
Firstly, giving Zito $126M was a huge overpayment. You can say giving him $18M per season was OK, they just should have done it for 2-3 years. You have to look at every contract in terms of total dollars and years. And $126M was a huge overpayemnt for a pitcher who was already regressing. His xFIP in his last year with the A's was 5.16. He had already beginning to K less batters, walk more and give up more FB's. His 4 years with the Giants haven't been largely different than his years with the A's when you look at those stats.

Many, many teams could offer Votto more than the Reds can. And pretty much the rest can offer just as much. And who knows what teams needs are in 2014. Everyone said the BoSox didn't need a 1B and look what happened when Gonzalez became available. And they paid through the nose to get him in a trade.

I meant overpaying in the sense of paying more than what you know the player is worth. The Giants just were dumb in their assessment of Zito. I was referring to contracts like the ones CC, Burnett, Crawford, and Werth got.

And again, my point is not that the Reds will be able to sign Votto without competition, just that I don't see any team offering him the Arod type contract that he seems to be hoping for.

But you are right, 2014 is a long way away, and anything can happen. Which is all the more reason to stop assuming that Votto will not be a Red in 2014.

Will M
01-17-2011, 03:16 PM
For those that think you can keep Yonder around until then seeing as he'll be cheap, I don't think it would be a wise move to keep both Alonso & votto on the roster in '12 & '13. Yonder can't play LF (or anywhere else) and is barely passable at 1b right now. Votto has worked hard to become a pretty solid first baseman defensively, and either can't or perhaps won't move to LF to open up a spot for Yonder (or perhaps the team hasn't asked him or doesn't want him to).

Take away the 12 pitchers and backup/tandem catcher and there's only 4 spots on the bench. One of those spots has to be able to play SS/middle infield defense, 2 more need to be able to play outfield defense, and assuming Scott Rolen is still here thru that time frame, some one's got to be able to play 3b at least part of the time.

Perhaps there's some room to intermingle those roles and create a spot for Yonder, but having a guy limited strictly to backup 1b, behind a guy that you want in there as many days as possible and is better defensively seems like a poor use of the 25 man squad for 2 years. Assuming good health, and continued success for Votto, there'd only be room for about 1 start every 2-3 weeks for Yonder. That's like 10-20 starts a season. throw in a regular pinch hitting appearance, that's about 200 at bats tops for a guy with litle defensive ability, let alone defensive flexability.

Barring a long term injury that would put one or the other on the shelf next year, one of the 2 will likely be gone from the organization by opening day, 2012. As much as I'd love to have Votto here for the next 10 season, as much as I enjoy watching his every at bat, next offseason, someone is going to fall short in the Alber Pujols sweepstakes, if he even makes it to the free agent market. Someone is going to want Albert Pujols like production in their lineup, and will like the certaintity in Joey's contract and may be willing to overpay the Reds for his services, or at least pay more than you'd expect from his Type A status and the draft pick compensation. Votto would certainly fetch more ML ready talent on the trade market than Yonder. For a team that looks to have the pitching to contend the playoffs over the next 5+ seasons, cashing in on Votto's trade value next offseason, and moving Yonder to 1b may be the best long term option for this club.

I agree 100%.

Possible future scenario...
1) Alonso has a great year in AAA. Maybe even joins the Reds as a LH bench bat for the stretch run & plays well.
2) After this season the Reds approach Votto about an extension. He declines.
3) At that point I would deal Votto for the best return. Its almost a 'no brainer' for me. First of all at that point it would be very obvious that he had no interest in a LTC with the Reds. Second his replacement is in house, cheap & under team control for six more years. Third the return via trade after 2011 will be greater than the return via trade at any point thereafter (and better than 2 draft picks after 2013).

Something I don't think anyone has pointed out: if the Reds don't play well for whatever reason then Votto may be dealt at this years trade deadline. Lets say the team is 8 games back in late July & not playing well. Another club approaches the Reds about Votto. The team asks him flat out "we need to know if you want to be a Red long term". He replies 'I don't know' or something similar. Then its Votto who is traded mid season as Jocketty feels like he is getting a better return mid 2011 than by waiting until the offseason.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 03:22 PM
If culture has truly changed by this contract then how does it differ from the contracts to Phillips, Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn during the pre-jocketty Reds? Does this signal that the Reds are no longer willing to buy out free agent years?

Like I said, this "culture" stuff is overblown.


I think you've just shown that changing the culture started when Cast bought out Linder, and that while it took a few years, and more than just one move, as all culture changes do, almost by definition, it has worked.

Patrick Bateman
01-17-2011, 03:27 PM
I meant overpaying in the sense of paying more than what you know the player is worth. The Giants just were dumb in their assessment of Zito. I was referring to contracts like the ones CC, Burnett, Crawford, and Werth got.


Based on that definition, there has never been a contract that you would consider an overpayment.

A team would inherently never pay a person more than what they thought were worth to their organization.

TheNext44
01-17-2011, 03:43 PM
Based on that definition, there has never been a contract that you would consider an overpayment.

A team would inherently never pay a person more than what they thought were worth to their organization.

Let me rephrase that then. I meant overpaying in the sense that the team payed more than what the player was worth in the open market. Very few teams can do that. Boston, NY (both), Philly, and now the Nat's have done that on occasion. Like you said, because, for various reasons, signing that player means more to that team than it does to other teams, and they can afford it.

This is relevant for the Votto discussion since many people are afraid that even if the Reds are willing and able to pay fair market value for Votto, they will get blown away by some other teams. My argument is that it is likely that the teams that usually blow away other teams with outrageous offers, won't need Votto.

REDREAD
01-17-2011, 03:51 PM
1. your dates are wrong. Votto is a free agent after 2013 not 2014.


Yes, you are right, I got sloppy counting there. sorry.

You have a fair point that Alonso might give us more "bang for the buck" long term, plus we control him longer.

I think though, in the context of the current team, the smart thing is to hold on to Votto and hope he gives us 3 more MVP caliber years, as opposed to getting averagish production for a 1b out of Alonso. Alonso will most likely have some growing pains. If we are rebuilding, that's fine. But the Reds need to be in "win now" mode.

Hopefully Alonso can be traded for a player that fills another need.

Edd Roush
01-17-2011, 03:52 PM
I agree 100%.

Possible future scenario...
1) Alonso has a great year in AAA. Maybe even joins the Reds as a LH bench bat for the stretch run & plays well.
2) After this season the Reds approach Votto about an extension. He declines.
3) At that point I would deal Votto for the best return. Its almost a 'no brainer' for me. First of all at that point it would be very obvious that he had no interest in a LTC with the Reds. Second his replacement is in house, cheap & under team control for six more years. Third the return via trade after 2011 will be greater than the return via trade at any point thereafter (and better than 2 draft picks after 2013).

Something I don't think anyone has pointed out: if the Reds don't play well for whatever reason then Votto may be dealt at this years trade deadline. Lets say the team is 8 games back in late July & not playing well. Another club approaches the Reds about Votto. The team asks him flat out "we need to know if you want to be a Red long term". He replies 'I don't know' or something similar. Then its Votto who is traded mid season as Jocketty feels like he is getting a better return mid 2011 than by waiting until the offseason.

I think I agree with the first half of your post and then disagree with your assessment of the possibility of trading Votto at this year's trade deadline. I agree that 2011 is going to go a long way in determining the future of 1B for the Reds. Let's hope Alonso can stay healthy and we get 500-600 PAs against AAA/MLB pitching to see what he can do. I think if he's tearing the cover off the ball and playing solid defense, the Reds need to approach Votto about adding 2-3 years to his current contract. If Votto is not interested, the Reds need to move on. I know that may sound like blasphemy to some, but I don't want the Reds to be the ones holding the bag when they have already dealt Alonso for below market value because every other GM in the major leagues will know that there is no room for Alonso in Cincinnati and he has no options remaining. 1B are easy to come by so I don't see Alonso having too much value. However, an MVP candidate like Votto is not easy to come by and presents a lot of surplus value at the gate and in the press. If Votto doesn't know after 4 years in Cincy if this is the place for him, both parties need to move on and the Reds need to cash in at the peak of his value. Next off-season the two biggest decisions Walt will need to make are what to do with first base and what to do with Brandon Phillips.

REDREAD
01-17-2011, 04:01 PM
I think you've just shown that changing the culture started when Cast bought out Linder, and that while it took a few years, and more than just one move, as all culture changes do, almost by definition, it has worked.


We just saw a quote from Fred Lewis. Fred basically said that he heard from Walt that the Reds were interested, so he waited for them to get back to him.

Now granted, Lewis isn't a top level FA, but he's a decent player that probably had other options. It's nice to see FAs want to play here, without overpaying. (The same could be said about Renturia, he wanted to come here).

Now I agree that money loosened up a bit in Wayne era, with Dunn, Harang and Arroyo being extended instead of dumped in a fire sale. IIRC, Harang and Arroyo were extended in 2007.. I can not remember the exact date of the Reds sale, but I think Lindner announced it in 2005.. So yes, Cast is a big part of the culture change.

Allen and Lindner were all about making huge promises to contend in 2003, and then after all the preseason tickets were sold, Allen couldn't wait to dump everyone making over a million dollars off the roster. It's nice that the Reds are no longer the laughingstock of baseball.

redsfandan
01-17-2011, 04:01 PM
Let me rephrase that then. I meant overpaying in the sense that the team payed more than what the player was worth in the open market. Very few teams can do that. Boston, NY (both), Philly, and now the Nat's have done that on occasion. Like you said, because, for various reasons, signing that player means more to that team than it does to other teams, and they can afford it.

This is relevant for the Votto discussion since many people are afraid that even if the Reds are willing and able to pay fair market value for Votto, they will get blown away by some other teams. My argument is that it is likely that the teams that usually blow away other teams with outrageous offers, won't need Votto.

No, I don't think so. It's not about whether another team would overpay for him. It's about whether the Reds will be able to afford to pay him market value and whether they should.

OnBaseMachine
01-17-2011, 04:01 PM
From John Fay: Votto - I can't imagine playing anywhere else


He says there’s no significance in the fact that the deal is three years. He could walk when it’s up.

“But I can’t imagine playing anywhere else,” he said. “I enjoy myself. I can’t imagine being with a better team. The Yankees or Red Sox — that’s a lot to deal with. I don’t want to go anywhere else.”



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/17/votto-i-cant-imagine-playing-anywhere-else/

Screwball
01-17-2011, 04:29 PM
From John Fay: Votto - I can't imagine playing anywhere else



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/17/votto-i-cant-imagine-playing-anywhere-else/

Normally when an athlete says something like this, I take it with a giant grain of salt. But Votto is probably the most candid and sincere player I've ever followed - maybe even being a little too honest at times. Considering the source, this is a very refreshing and encouraging quote. Thanks for posting, OBM.

IslandRed
01-17-2011, 04:32 PM
Re: the idea of trading Votto before he reaches free agency:

Dealing star players in advance of free agency so the team can get a better return than comp picks is a great idea, but by and large, it's something teams do only if they don't envision winning anything within that time frame. The Rays are a smart club, but cash-strapped, and they knew for a long time they had no chance of re-signing Carl Crawford next time his deal came due. But when push came to shove, there were pennants to chase, they needed him, and that was trumps.

Furthermore, those fearing a near-term Votto trade are mostly extrapolating from generic small-market group-think and not looking at what our present-day decision makers think. We aren't the Yankees but we aren't the Marlins either. Based on what we've seen from Castellini, and historically know about Jocketty, it's neither man's style to sell off a star player for unproven kids when there are playoff spots within a clear line of sight.

For me, I don't see a Votto trade as even a source of discussion for two years. And probably not in the 2012-2013 offseason unless the Reds have suffered a sharp negative reversal of fortune that makes them look like a playoff longshot. In 2013 at the trade deadline if the Reds are out of it, and Votto is about to walk, then sure.

OnBaseMachine
01-17-2011, 04:37 PM
From Fay - Jocketty on the Votto deal


“The No. 1 thing for us was to avoid arbitration,” Jocketty said. “This deal does that. We’ll revisit adding years before the end of the contract. We were more concerned with the arbitration years. It’s hard to predict where salaries will be.”



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/17/jocketty-on-the-votto-deal/

GAC
01-17-2011, 04:50 PM
Another thing to consider too.... when you let high caliber (star) players go through the arb process, for those years he is eligible, it can cause some "wounds" in the relationship with that player because a contract is not being offered, which does provide better security, and it leaves the impression that you don't want to pay him what he's worth.

Unassisted
01-17-2011, 04:54 PM
From John Fay: Votto - I can't imagine playing anywhere else
I'll bet his agent can help him with that. ;)

This is the right thing to say. It will put him in good graces with the local fans who call sports talk radio and question his loyalty. I'm sure he's not nearly so naive or unimaginative as this, however.

gonelong
01-17-2011, 05:20 PM
If culture has truly changed by this contract then how does it differ from the contracts to Phillips, Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn during the pre-jocketty Reds? Does this signal that the Reds are no longer willing to buy out free agent years?

Like I said, this "culture" stuff is overblown.

I am not trying to change your mind, you have your opinion, I have mine. :)

A culture is not changed by one move.

IMO it's different this time as *I* perceive that the team isn't just window dressing, its in the process of creating a work environment conducive to getting the most out of the team. I never felt like signing any of those guys was working towards a winner, at best it was working towards they ever elusive "contention". I don't think the culture is "there" yet, but they are headed in a much better direction than anytime in the last 15 years or so IMO.

Peanut butter is pretty good, chocolate is pretty good. Put them together and they are very good. Sometimes the whole is greater than the parts. In a sports environment this is difficult to create, hard to define, and all but impossible to hold on to. Nevertheless, its a valuable goal to work towards as long as you don't lose sight of the tangibles along the way.


The Reds controlled him over the years of this deal. Nothing has changed other than they eliminated the ambiguity concerning what they're going to pay him. The above analogy simply isn't accurate.

In other words, the Reds said, you know that car you're driving for the next three years? You're driving it for the next three years.

Cars don't care about the next 3 years, but people do. I like my analogy better, but I have no issue if you see it that way.

IMO, engaged. Much different than dating.

“The No. 1 thing for us was to avoid arbitration,” Jocketty said. “This deal does that.We’ll revisit adding years before the end of the contract.
Sounds like they are interested in planning the wedding. We'll see. :)

GL

TRF
01-17-2011, 05:29 PM
If culture has truly changed by this contract then how does it differ from the contracts to Phillips, Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn during the pre-jocketty Reds? Does this signal that the Reds are no longer willing to buy out free agent years?

Like I said, this "culture" stuff is overblown.

It doesn't differ. It's a process. It doesn't happen overnight, and it isn't a perfect process. Culture change started under Krivsky, and has continued along the same path under Jocketty. The culture that was being changed was the one put in place by Jim Bowden. That system was ingrained in every level of the organization. I point to the thread about Mack Jenkins as proof of how that change was being implemented.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 05:49 PM
Another thing to consider too.... when you let high caliber (star) players go through the arb process, for those years he is eligible, it can cause some "wounds" in the relationship with that player because a contract is not being offered, which does provide better security, and it leaves the impression that you don't want to pay him what he's worth.

I would agree completely. However, I don't think there is one person here who ever wanted things with Votto to reach the arb process. Big difference between a series of 1 year deals amongst 2 parties working together and a series of arbitration battles.

jojo
01-17-2011, 05:50 PM
I am not trying to change your mind, you have your opinion, I have mine. :)

A culture is not changed by one move.

IMO it's different this time as *I* perceive that the team isn't just window dressing, its in the process of creating a work environment conducive to getting the most out of the team. I never felt like signing any of those guys was working towards a winner, at best it was working towards they ever elusive "contention". I don't think the culture is "there" yet, but they are headed in a much better direction than anytime in the last 15 years or so IMO.

I'm confused. The Votto deal is a solidification of a cultural shift that those deals-though it can be argued the Votto deal was a less effective, more of the same deal-really weren't consistent with?


Peanut butter is pretty good, chocolate is pretty good. Put them together and they are very good. Sometimes the whole is greater than the parts. In a sports environment this is difficult to create, hard to define, and all but impossible to hold on to. Nevertheless, its a valuable goal to work towards as long as you don't lose sight of the tangibles along the way.

This is very metaphysical sounding and not really on point. I personally like Reeses peanut butter cups but think the Reeses peanut butter trees taste better. That really doesn't speak to Votto's contract though. The Reds bought out Votto's arb years but failed to extend him beyond years that they already controlled. There's value beyond the potential surplus value they may have locked in with cost certainty in that they avoided the conflict of arbitration but not being able to buy out any free agent years is a disappointment.


Cars don't care about the next 3 years, but people do. I like my analogy better, but I have no issue if you see it that way.

IMO, engaged. Much different than dating.

But there is no difference between under team control for the next three years and under team control for the next three years... that's where the analogy failed.

Caveat Emperor
01-17-2011, 05:51 PM
I don't get why anyone would be upset with this deal. The dollars are fair, it avoids the arb process, and allows the Reds to plan their budgets for the next 3 years without worrying that the market will explode (say, after a certain Cardinals first baseman signs his next deal) in the coming years.

Worry about 2014 in 2014.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 05:54 PM
I just listened audio of Joey on MLB.com (under the video section) and he says "I can't imagine playing for another team right now"

I did not see/hear the entire press conference, but that qualifying "right now" is a bit unsettling as a Reds fan hoping he somehow is here for more than 3 years. Did he make that remark more than once? I hope so.

I repeat...Votto is handling this perfectly fine...I'd be inclined to do exactly what he has done here.

kaldaniels
01-17-2011, 06:02 PM
You know, I've been saying on this thread that I don't get this move...but perhaps it does come down to just one word...Pujols.

If Albert signs for 30 MM a yr and Joey is outproducing him...that would not bode well for the Reds going year to year. Maybe it is that simple.

PuffyPig
01-17-2011, 07:51 PM
I don't get why anyone would be upset with this deal. The dollars are fair, it avoids the arb process, and allows the Reds to plan their budgets for the next 3 years without worrying that the market will explode (say, after a certain Cardinals first baseman signs his next deal) in the coming years.

Worry about 2014 in 2014.

I don't believe anyone is "upset" with the deal.

Many are disappointed it didn't include 1-2 FA years.

Apples and oranges.

Razor Shines
01-17-2011, 08:37 PM
Another thing to consider too.... when you let high caliber (star) players go through the arb process, for those years he is eligible, it can cause some "wounds" in the relationship with that player because a contract is not being offered, which does provide better security, and it leaves the impression that you don't want to pay him what he's worth.

Except there probably would be a contract offered. More likely in that scenario Votto would decline the contract because he doesn't want to give a discount on any of his FA years.

Razor Shines
01-17-2011, 08:40 PM
I just listened audio of Joey on MLB.com (under the video section) and he says "I can't imagine playing for another team right now"

I did not see/hear the entire press conference, but that qualifying "right now" is a bit unsettling as a Reds fan hoping he somehow is here for more than 3 years. Did he make that remark more than once? I hope so.

I repeat...Votto is handling this perfectly fine...I'd be inclined to do exactly what he has done here.

I agree. I don't have any problem at all with how he's handling this, I just don't expect him to be a Red for longer than this contract....if that long.

The Operator
01-17-2011, 10:19 PM
The full quote makes the "right now" qualifier a little less alarming, IMO.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6031196

"It has absolutely nothing to do with getting to free agency or that, although a lot of people would interpret it that way. I can't imagine playing for another team right now."

corkedbat
01-17-2011, 10:40 PM
I don't think they'll deal Alonso now that they know they won't get a long-term discount from Votto. Alonso cannot be optioned to AAA after this season. That puts him on a collision course with Votto for 2012, leaving the team 2011 to get as good a read on Alonso as they can, via his last 500-600 ABs in AAA. After 2011, they'll make a call, Votto or Alonso. And my sense is that if they like Alonso's progress, they'll take his 6 years of control, including some cheap contracts, over 2 years of Votto at close to 30 million. The cost certainty they've got with Votto is a plus not only for the Reds, but also for any team that may want to acquire him, and dealing him with 2 years left on his contract will bring back more than if they wait longer.

When I thought there was a chance that they could add a LFer through a trade, I was all for dealing Alonso. Since it doesn't seem that is going to happen though, I would hold onto to Yonder (at least til the trade deadline). and see how his power production comes around.

I gave litle doubt that YA is capable of hitting for a high BP/OBP, but I'm not interested in Sean Casey part deaux. If Yonder can show breakout power, it not only enhances his possible trade value, but also gives you the option of dealing Votto for a package of young players at other positions (pitching, LF, SS, 3B).

corkedbat
01-17-2011, 10:47 PM
From John Fay: Votto - I can't imagine playing anywhere else



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/17/votto-i-cant-imagine-playing-anywhere-else/

The best quote on the record from Joey I've heard to date. I'd like to see JV in a reds Jersey for the next 10-15 years. It's gonna take some kind of creativity though from the powers that be. As I said previously though, I think there comes a tipping point where you commit to a Free Agent LTC with JV or you deal him for the best package you can. That point is well before the start of the 2014 season, IMO.

corkedbat
01-17-2011, 10:59 PM
I don't get why anyone would be upset with this deal. The dollars are fair, it avoids the arb process, and allows the Reds to plan their budgets for the next 3 years without worrying that the market will explode (say, after a certain Cardinals first baseman signs his next deal) in the coming years.

Worry about 2014 in 2014.

The Yankees, the Red Sox, the Phillies, etc. can afford to say worry about 2014 in 2014. Small market teams like the Reds cannot afford to just pick and choose from the top of the free agency heap to fill a hoke. They also cannot afford to let major pieces walk without a return

Walt and BCast should already have a plan for all the eventualities with JV now, not Dec 2013. If they are gonna hold onto Joey and let him walk after the 2013, they need to be making shorter term plkans to raise the salary structure and leverage Joey to the maximum while he's here.

If they are serious about building for the future as well as now - something sustainable - then they need to be deciding what they will need to deal him and looking at targets yesterday. Waiting ubtil the day after a marquis player's contract lapses is how you end up with one or two years of playoffs and the 10-12 years of rebuilding.

TheNext44
01-18-2011, 02:22 AM
According to Jon Heyman
Joey votto salaries: $5.5 mil in '11, $9.5 mil in '12 and $17 mil in '13. Gets $6 mil sign bonus, w $2.5 mil upfront

I'm guessing it's $8M in 2011, $13M in 2012 and $17M in 2013.

KronoRed
01-18-2011, 04:06 AM
Neat.

Ron Madden
01-18-2011, 04:40 AM
I don't see where anyone has said they are upset with this deal and I've read every post in this thread.

I've seen a few members express disappointment that the deal only coverd three arbitration years and there are a few post wondering why the deal didn't contain at least one FA year. I don't really see where anyone is sorry the contract was signed.

GAC
01-18-2011, 05:19 AM
I would agree completely. However, I don't think there is one person here who ever wanted things with Votto to reach the arb process. Big difference between a series of 1 year deals amongst 2 parties working together and a series of arbitration battles.

Just my 2 cents, but I think this FO basically knew the ballpark figures that Joey was probably going to be awarded if he went to arb this year, and the subsequent years, if he continued to put up the consistent numbers, and decided they wanted to avoid the whole arb process -which again can create wounds - and give him the guaranteed money.

In the Fay piece, Joey stated... "“Three years was just what we came to. I’m very happy. I don’t have to fool with arbitration. It’s cost certainty.”

And Jocketty said there’s no reason that more years can’t be added later.

“The No. 1 thing for us was to avoid arbitration,” Jocketty said. “This deal does that. We’ll revisit adding years before the end of the contract. We were more concerned with the arbitration years. It’s hard to predict where salaries will be.”

It also buys them some time too. Cordero's contract is up after this next season (12M). I highly doubt they'll take the 2012 club option, and give him his 1M buyout. Also.... Arroyo's contract is up after the 2013 season (deferred monies in there - 15M paid thru 2021). And there will also be some other people (contracts) gone too (like Rolen).

I think they will seriously try to add some years on when the time comes. But they have 3 years to do so.

Meanwhile..... Joey just got one niiiiice raise. ;)

membengal
01-18-2011, 06:13 AM
I don't see where anyone has said they are upset with this deal and I've read every post in this thread.

I've seen a few members express disappointment that the deal only coverd three arbitration years and there are a few post wondering why the deal didn't contain at least one FA year. I don't really see where anyone is sorry the contract was signed.

I guess it is the post after post after post, Ron, from some members, speculating and or going out of their way to predict he's definitely gone after 2013 or maybe even at some point in 2012. It's knee-jerk and it is, frankly, crappy to read in that the posts are made without much reference to facts, or even waiting for facts. Sorry, but it is. Looking at the details as they've come out, if the Reds are indeed shouldering $17 million for 2013, it seems to me that is a nice indication the Reds are not at all averse to ponying up for Votto past that year. And the Reds have indicated as much. And Votto has indicated as much. Which seems like great news. Or, people can bunch their undergarments as they have been over why the contract doesn't meet some hypothetical ideal, in the continual quest to play the tiresome off-season game of who-won-at-the-negotiating-table. That get old. As does the parsing at length of Votto's words looking for hidden meanings that he really wants to be somewhere else. Like Votto's ultimate decision at the age of 30 validates the fanbase or the city or something. It's silly. Sounds like he is happy to be here. Sounds like the Reds are happy to have him. A lot can happen in the next few years, and the contract is a nice marriage of team needs and player needs. I just don't see the need to pre-fret like so many are quick to do.

For what it's worth.

mth123
01-18-2011, 06:25 AM
If they have room in the budget for a $17 Million salary in 2013, then it wouldn't take much trimming around the edges to go to $20 Million if need be to keep Votto around.

If you ask me, Alonso's importance becomes as a trade piece in a package to get something that can help propel the team up a level. I'd guess that the money will be doable, but to keep Votto, he probably needs to be a centerpiece of a championship caliber team. If the Reds are still hanging around the fringes of the postseason and getting canned in the first round over the next three years, my guess is Joey is gone. Nudge the team into serious series contender/powerhouse status and he probably will want to stay.

If Votto does go, then the Reds will have a $17 Million salary spot available to attempt to replace Votto's production (maybe with a good 1B for half that and upgrading other spots). Either way, I don't see keeping Alonso as essential. I think dealing the likely wasted depth to improve elsewhere is what is essential to keep the team from stagnating and regressing.

membengal
01-18-2011, 06:29 AM
If they have room in the budget for a $17 Million salary in 2013, then it wouldn't take much trimming around the edges to go to $20 Million if need be to keep Votto around.... Either way, I don't see keeping Alonso as essential. I think dealing the likely wasted depth to improve elsewhere is what is essential to keep the team from stagnating and regressing.

Indeed.

Reds Freak
01-18-2011, 08:32 AM
Joey called into Lance McAllister's show yesterday unexpectedly to say how much he appreciated the deal and to apologize for not being able to stay in town longer. It's in hour two around the 12:00 minute mark...

http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=LanceMcAlister.xml

My favorite quote? He says he wants to be embarrassed in three years by the deal, meaning he's striving to get better and wants to play so well that he sold himself way short...

edabbs44
01-18-2011, 09:13 AM
If Cincy makes a WS or two during the deal, you never know what can happen in 2014.

backbencher
01-18-2011, 10:55 AM
The Yankees, the Red Sox, the Phillies, etc. can afford to say worry about 2014 in 2014. Small market teams like the Reds cannot afford to just pick and choose from the top of the free agency heap to fill a hoke. They also cannot afford to let major pieces walk without a return

Walt and BCast should already have a plan for all the eventualities with JV now, not Dec 2013. If they are gonna hold onto Joey and let him walk after the 2013, they need to be making shorter term plkans to raise the salary structure and leverage Joey to the maximum while he's here.

If they are serious about building for the future as well as now - something sustainable - then they need to be deciding what they will need to deal him and looking at targets yesterday. Waiting ubtil the day after a marquis player's contract lapses is how you end up with one or two years of playoffs and the 10-12 years of rebuilding.

Wait . . . what?

Your idea is that Jocketty should have used the presser to announce to the world, "this is a great deal. It lets us keep Joey for the next two-and-a-half seasons, and trade him at the end of July 2013"?

Razor Shines
01-18-2011, 11:07 AM
Wait . . . what?

Your idea is that Jocketty should have used the presser to announce to the world, "this is a great deal. It lets us keep Joey for the next two-and-a-half seasons, and trade him at the end of July 2013"?

That's not even close to what he was suggesting. It's easy to argue against though.

backbencher
01-18-2011, 11:25 AM
That's not even close to what he was suggesting. It's easy to argue against though.

Either the comment was a non sequitur in this thread (perhaps!) or it was a complaint that Jocketty did not make the front office's long-term strategy for Votto's salary figure transparent when announcing the deal.

I don't disagree with the first or third paragraphs, and would only quibble with the second, in the abstract. It's their placement in a thread about a Votto contract is jarring, because they have nothing to do with the three-year deal (that is, the same principles would apply with the same weight whether the deal existed or not).

kaldaniels
01-18-2011, 11:39 AM
Just a hypothetical here...

But if Votto was eligible for FA after 2011...does he still only sign a 3 year deal now or after the season? It seems as if he is playing it as if the 3 yr deal has nothing to do with his entry on the FA market...i have trouble believing that. But it seems many on here do. Sorry.

edabbs44
01-18-2011, 11:48 AM
Just a hypothetical here...

But if Votto was eligible for FA after 2011...does he still only sign a 3 year deal now or after the season? It seems as if he is playing it as if the 3 yr deal has nothing to do with his entry on the FA market...i have trouble believing that. But it seems many on here do. Sorry.

Yeah, it isn't a coincidence. I really think that Votto wanted certainty and safety and Cincy wanted to make him happy in case he decides to give them a hometown discount in 2014.

corkedbat
01-18-2011, 11:59 AM
Wait . . . what?

Your idea is that Jocketty should have used the presser to announce to the world, "this is a great deal. It lets us keep Joey for the next two-and-a-half seasons, and trade him at the end of July 2013"?
I said nothing like that. What I said was that WJ and BC should already have at least two scenarios planned out to deal with Joey's situation. One on how to have the funds available to sign him to a LTC by 2014 and keep a viable team on the field beyond 2013. If not the first, then there should already have been discussions on what it would take from another team to deal him and a list of targets started. It's not too early to put out feelers. Jocketty is not the type to put announce his intent at a presser, nor should he need to. 2014 however would be much too late.

gonelong
01-18-2011, 12:14 PM
But there is no difference between under team control for the next three years and under team control for the next three years... that's where the analogy failed.

No difference to jojo? Maybe, but frankly jojo's assessment of the situation is superceded in my mind by the fact the there is obviously a difference to Votto and the Reds front office since they put this deal together. Otherwise, no need to bother.

The 3 years of control is the same, but many other aspects of the relationship have changed.

GL

jojo
01-18-2011, 12:34 PM
No difference to jojo? Maybe, but frankly jojo's assessment of the situation is superceded in my mind by the fact the there is obviously a difference to Votto and the Reds front office since they put this deal together. Otherwise, no need to bother.

The 3 years of control is the same, but many other aspects of the relationship have changed.

GL

The Reds now know for certain what their remaining three years of control are going to cost. Beyond that, what else has changed?

kaldaniels
01-18-2011, 12:40 PM
The Reds now know for certain what their remaining three years of control are going to cost. Beyond that, what else has changed?

Warm fuzzy feelings. :confused:

Caveman Techie
01-18-2011, 12:51 PM
The Reds now know for certain what their remaining three years of control are going to cost. Beyond that, what else has changed?

They no longer have to go through three arbitration cases with their star player, and tell him why he isn't worth the money he's asking for.

They no longer have to worry about how much money Pujols, Fielder, or any other Firstbasemen is going to make, which helps set the arbitration salary level.

membengal
01-18-2011, 12:56 PM
They no longer have to go through three arbitration cases with their star player, and tell him why he isn't worth the money he's asking for.

They no longer have to worry about how much money Pujols, Fielder, or any other Firstbasemen is going to make, which helps set the arbitration salary level.

Well said. Some are being almost wilfully blind to those two points.

jojo
01-18-2011, 12:56 PM
They no longer have to go through three arbitration cases with their star player, and tell him why he isn't worth the money he's asking for.

They no longer have to worry about how much money Pujols, Fielder, or any other Firstbasemen is going to make, which helps set the arbitration salary level.

so in other words, the Reds now know what their remaining three years of control are going to cost....

kaldaniels
01-18-2011, 12:57 PM
They no longer have to go through three arbitration cases with their star player, and tell him why he isn't worth the money he's asking for.

They no longer have to worry about how much money Pujols, Fielder, or any other Firstbasemen is going to make, which helps set the arbitration salary level.

Do people not realize how rare arbitration hearings are? This deal removed the possibility of them, yes. But odds are they never would have happened.

jojo
01-18-2011, 12:58 PM
Well said. Some are being almost wilfully blind to those two points.

Not really.

westofyou
01-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Do people not realize how rare arbitration hearings are? This deal removed the possibility of them, yes. But odds are they never would have happened.

For the Reds they're rare, mostly because they didn't have the talent that could kill them in arb, nor did they keep talent much before they became expensive.

However the market in a year won't be like the market today, nor is today's like last years, it's a crapshoot.

kaldaniels
01-18-2011, 01:03 PM
For the Reds they're rare, mostly because they didn't have the talent that could kill them in arb, nor did they keep talent much before they became expensive.

However the market in a year won't be like the market today, nor is today's like last years, it's a crapshoot.

I can come around to an extent with the fact that salaries could escalate. But this signing hadn't happened I can't be convinced they would have ever gone to an arb hearing.

camisadelgolf
01-18-2011, 01:06 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if salaries went up significantly following the next CBA. If that's the case, this could turn into a bigger bargain than expected.

corkedbat
01-18-2011, 01:09 PM
Well said. Some are being almost wilfully blind to those two points.

I don't believe abyone is being willingly blind to it. I do believe they see the significant point is neither cost surety nor possibly sparing JV's feelings somewhat, but rather the lack of a 4th or 5th year and what that may portend as far as keeping Joey of the free agent market. Buying out at least a bit of Free Agency is the point of deals like this, the other stuff is a side benefit.

There is nothing really wrong with this deal such as it is, it just doesn't bode well for the future of JV with the Reds in Cincy beyond 2013. Hope that changes somehow.

kaldaniels
01-18-2011, 01:09 PM
nm dupl

membengal
01-18-2011, 01:10 PM
Kal, once the fielder and pujols contracts are done, next year's starting point for votto in arbitration may have necessitated taking it to the mediator. If votto puts in another .950+ ops season, he walks into next season asking, if his agent isn't brain dead, 17-20 million (or more). And reds would fight it, and here we go...

The reds and votto took all of that off the table, and bought each side time to plan for the future. And I think it disingenuous to state, as one poster did last page, that there is no difference between getting something done and letting it go year to year.

TRF
01-18-2011, 01:10 PM
I can come around to an extent with the fact that salaries could escalate. But this signing hadn't happened I can't be convinced they would have ever gone to an arb hearing.

Arb hearing or not, if they went year to year, they'd have been basing his salary somewhat on arb rules.

as woy said, crapshoot.

jojo
01-18-2011, 01:39 PM
Kal, once the fielder and pujols contracts are done, next year's starting point for votto in arbitration may have necessitated taking it to the mediator. If votto puts in another .950+ ops season, he walks into next season asking, if his agent isn't brain dead, 17-20 million (or more). And reds would fight it, and here we go...

The reds and votto took all of that off the table, and bought each side time to plan for the future. And I think it disingenuous to state, as one poster did last page, that there is no difference between getting something done and letting it go year to year.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that one poster didnt acknowledge tangible benefits of buying out arb years while making the argument that it's a failure to not have bought out free agency years and this contract doesn't really point to a narrative of cultural change. This deal doesnt make an extension more likely by giving both sides more time. This deal decreases the Reds leverage regarding negotiating additional years.

membengal
01-18-2011, 01:45 PM
Unless it doesn't. Your refusal to acknowledge the unknown of each side establishing a good faith basis to re-visit this in 2013 is also wilfully blind.

TheNext44
01-18-2011, 02:05 PM
I think it's disingenuous to suggest that one poster didnt acknowledge tangible benefits of buying out arb years while making the argument that it's a failure to not have bought out free agency years and this contract doesn't really point to a narrative of cultural change. This deal doesnt make an extension more likely by giving both sides more time. This deal decreases the Reds leverage regarding negotiating additional years.

Jocketty specifically stated that the Reds did try to negotiate a longer extension, but felt that given the numbers that were discussed, it would be better to discuss buying out the free agent years at a later time.

You might be right that the Reds will have decreased negotiating power after this, but Jocketty seems to think otherwise, or at the very least, thinks that it's as low it can be right now.

Caveman Techie
01-18-2011, 02:08 PM
Just because the arbitration hearing is rare, negotiations leading up to it still take place, and the whole process is painful, not just the hearing.

Caveman Techie
01-18-2011, 02:12 PM
so in other words, the Reds now know what their remaining three years of control are going to cost....

Without it being affected by the future insane amounts of money that those two are going to command. Not just a matter of knowing how much it will cost.

jojo
01-18-2011, 02:15 PM
Unless it doesn't. Your refusal to acknowledge the unknown of each side establishing a good faith basis to re-visit this in 2013 is also wilfully blind.

The refusal to acknowledge that the lost leverage trumps whatever good faith was acquired is puzzling especially amidst metacommentary about open-mindedness.


What's more important when negotiating, leverage or good will?

kaldaniels
01-18-2011, 02:17 PM
Just because the arbitration hearing is rare, negotiations leading up to it still take place, and the whole process is painful, not just the hearing.

It might be it might not. I don't think Bill Bray's feelings are hurt too much today.

Will M
01-18-2011, 02:24 PM
I guess it is the post after post after post, Ron, from some members, speculating and or going out of their way to predict he's definitely gone after 2013 or maybe even at some point in 2012. It's knee-jerk and it is, frankly, crappy to read in that the posts are made without much reference to facts, or even waiting for facts. Sorry, but it is. Looking at the details as they've come out, if the Reds are indeed shouldering $17 million for 2013, it seems to me that is a nice indication the Reds are not at all averse to ponying up for Votto past that year. And the Reds have indicated as much. And Votto has indicated as much. Which seems like great news. Or, people can bunch their undergarments as they have been over why the contract doesn't meet some hypothetical ideal, in the continual quest to play the tiresome off-season game of who-won-at-the-negotiating-table. That get old. As does the parsing at length of Votto's words looking for hidden meanings that he really wants to be somewhere else. Like Votto's ultimate decision at the age of 30 validates the fanbase or the city or something. It's silly. Sounds like he is happy to be here. Sounds like the Reds are happy to have him. A lot can happen in the next few years, and the contract is a nice marriage of team needs and player needs. I just don't see the need to pre-fret like so many are quick to do.

For what it's worth.

I would love for the Reds to extend Votto, have him have a HOF career as a lifelong Red & win a few World Series Championships while he is here. That being said, if this is not going to be in the cards then the Reds need to maximize the value of Votto. Either in a 'go for the brass ring' while he is here strategy or trade him for value instead of just getting drafts picks. This is a very tough decision the Reds will face. Add to it the fact that a cheap replacement will be ready very soon & it adds some urgency to the situation (rather than waiting until after 2012).


I don't believe abyone is being willingly blind to it. I do believe they see the significant point is neither cost surety nor possibly sparing JV's feelings somewhat, but rather the lack of a 4th or 5th year and what that may portend as far as keeping Joey of the free agent market. Buying out at least a bit of Free Agency is the point of deals like this, the other stuff is a side benefit.

There is nothing really wrong with this deal such as it is, it just doesn't bode well for the future of JV with the Reds in Cincy beyond 2013. Hope that changes somehow.

+1

The fact that either the Reds or Votto didn't want more than a three year deal is a red flag. I agree that this fact, whatever the reason, bodes porrly for the chances that Votto is a Red in 2014.


Jocketty specifically stated that the Reds did try to negotiate a longer extension, but felt that given the numbers that were discussed, it would be better to discuss buying out the free agent years at a later time.

You might be right that the Reds will have decreased negotiating power after this, but Jocketty seems to think otherwise, or at the very least, thinks that it's as low it can be right now.

This is the first time I have read that the Reds, not Votto, were the ones who didn't want a longer deal. sigh. Its painfull to root for a small market team. After 15 years we make the postseason & immediately doubts arise about keeping the best players on the team.

westofyou
01-18-2011, 02:28 PM
First baseman Prince Fielder and the Milwaukee Brewers have avoided salary arbitration by agreeing to a $15.5 million, one-year contract.

camisadelgolf
01-18-2011, 02:30 PM
For reference, Jonathan Papelbon just signed a one-year, $12MM deal. He averages about 2.8 WAR per full season and had only 0.4 WAR in 2010. Joey Votto, on the other hand, is earning less than $13MM/year, and averages 4.6 WAR per full season, and he's coming off an MVP season. Are there really people out there thinking Votto's deal isn't in line with the rest of the market?

Will M
01-18-2011, 02:31 PM
FYI: a writer from MLBTR weighs in.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/votto-lozano-appear-to-make-smart-deal.html

The Operator
01-18-2011, 02:32 PM
Yea, this deal is looking better and better by the minute if you ask me.

Will M
01-18-2011, 02:36 PM
FYI: fangraphs weighs in.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/reds-deal-for-votto/

membengal
01-18-2011, 02:40 PM
Forget mlbtr. If you have premium access on baseball prospectus, check out christina karl's thoughts on the votto contract today. I am blackberry posting so can't summarize at length, but suffice it to say her read is votto gave the reds a significant "hometown discount" in agreeing to what he agreed to. Her other points are spot on and I commend the piece to those who can access it.

And, woy, thanks for the note on fielder. Underscores what you and several have been pointing out for pages now...

TheNext44
01-18-2011, 02:44 PM
This is the first time I have read that the Reds, not Votto, were the ones who didn't want a longer deal. sigh. Its painfull to root for a small market team. After 15 years we make the postseason & immediately doubts arise about keeping the best players on the team.

You seem to have misread what I wrote. Here's the quote from Fay:


The Reds did talk about longer contracts.

“But the way the numbers we going we thought this was the best way to go,” Jocketty said.

The Reds wanted a longer term deal, and discussed it with Votto. But the numbers he wanted didn't make sense to them at the time. It sounds like Votto would only accept a buyout of his free agency years if he was overpaid for them, and the Reds passed.

Will M
01-18-2011, 02:57 PM
You seem to have misread what I wrote. Here's the quote from Fay:



The Reds wanted a longer term deal, and discussed it with Votto. But the numbers he wanted didn't make sense to them at the time. It sounds like Votto would only accept a buyout of his free agency years if he was overpaid for them, and the Reds passed.

As fans we are not privy to the actual conversations & numbers. So we don't know how much exactly Votto wanted for years 4+. Was it $20M/year? $25M/year? $30M/year? So he might not have wanted an 'overpayment'. The team has had success signing guys to LTC with discounts. Maybe they wanted Votto to take a discount & he said no. We just don't know.

I suspect that a big market team would have had little problem giving him an extension. The Reds wouldn't do that given their financial situation. So the team risks losing him after 2013 as opposed to extending him now. Thats why rooting for a small market team can be depressing. Now, if Votto wanted 6/$104M vs 3/$38M I'm not sure I would have given it to him if I were the Reds. Their revenue stream likely won't support that unless attendence picks up.

bucksfan2
01-18-2011, 03:25 PM
As fans we are not privy to the actual conversations & numbers. So we don't know how much exactly Votto wanted for years 4+. Was it $20M/year? $25M/year? $30M/year? So he might not have wanted an 'overpayment'. The team has had success signing guys to LTC with discounts. Maybe they wanted Votto to take a discount & he said no. We just don't know.

I agree with this. There is too much information that we aren't privy to that actually make deals like this. Maybe Votto didn't want to sign a deal longer than three years. Maybe the contract like you said was way out of whack. What I do know is that the Reds don't make this deal unless they think they will benefit from it. Votto and his camp also make the deal because they think they will benefit from it. It sure would be nice to continue to pay him peanuts but that just isn't going to happen. And when the time comes that the contract expires I will worry about it then.


I suspect that a big market team would have had little problem giving him an extension. The Reds wouldn't do that given their financial situation. So the team risks losing him after 2013 as opposed to extending him now. Thats why rooting for a small market team can be depressing. Now, if Votto wanted 6/$104M vs 3/$38M I'm not sure I would have given it to him if I were the Reds. Their revenue stream likely won't support that unless attendence picks up.

Big market clubs don't like to lose money either. They don't like to flush money down the toilet in regards to big dollar contracts. What they do have is the ability to swallow more easily under performing contracts. Just because a big market club has the ability (in this case) to give Votto a 4th and 5th year at 20-25M+ doesn't mean they would do it. And it also doesn't mean its good business. In reality I don't think a club gives anyone max dollars when they still have him under control for 3 more years. I think they play a wait and see game in year one and two before they start to negotiate on a new deal.