PDA

View Full Version : What is Votto going to cost us?



brm7675
04-15-2011, 01:06 PM
Well the Red Sox just inked Gonzalez to a 7 year $154 million dollar deal, or more then $20 million per season and while he is very good, i think Votto is better. So we now that Albert is going to get at least $25 million if not more per season with his new contract, so can the Reds afford Votto and if so at what cost to not being able to sign other talent?

The DARK
04-15-2011, 01:26 PM
Well the Red Sox just inked Gonzalez to a 7 year $154 million dollar deal, or more then $20 million per season and while he is very good, i think Votto is better. So we now that Albert is going to get at least $25 million if not more per season with his new contract, so can the Reds afford Votto and if so at what cost to not being able to sign other talent?

There's a question of who's going to be in the market for him as well. As of right now, the Yankees have Texiera. The Sox have Gonzalez. And there's a damn good chance that the Cubs will have picked up Pujols by that time (or at least some long-term solution at 1b). If Votto truly comes to be considered Pujols's equal, there's a real question of who will be able to afford him, just like there is now for Pujols.

Either way, we still have at least 3 more years with Mr. Vottomatic. Let's go win a World Series in that time! :thumbup:

Ohioballplayer
04-15-2011, 01:44 PM
Well the Red Sox just inked Gonzalez to a 7 year $154 million dollar deal, or more then $20 million per season and while he is very good, i think Votto is better. So we now that Albert is going to get at least $25 million if not more per season with his new contract, so can the Reds afford Votto and if so at what cost to not being able to sign other talent?

Wont cost us anything, unfortunately I think he will go elsewhere even though I don't want him to.

Girevik
04-15-2011, 01:52 PM
Wont cost us anything, unfortunately I think he will go elsewhere even though I don't want him to.

That's the feeling I have as well. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just planning on enjoying his talents in Cincinnati while I can.

Hopefully, unlike in prior years, Cincy will be in a situation where he'll be helping them to the playoffs rather than getting traded at the deadline for more rebuilding parts.

arkimadee
04-15-2011, 01:58 PM
No way Cincy will be able to afford him in 3 years. You just have to look at it that you got 7 good years out of him and then move on. I'm not gonna worry about it.

ruREaDy2
04-15-2011, 02:03 PM
Enjoy his time here fellas because there will come a day when he no longer dones the Reds uniform unfortuantely. Unless, Mark Cuban or Donald Trump decide to buy out Castellini for the franchise!;)

brm7675
04-15-2011, 02:07 PM
I don't believe this idea the Reds can not financially "afford" him, the money is there and available. But you have to ask yourself at what cost to the Franchise as a whole. Also lets say the Reds decide he is unaffordable, do you let him walk or do you look at trading him? As for the Yanks, yea they have Mark T. but he is no youngster and could move to the DH role and then they could put Votto at First.

bounty37h
04-15-2011, 02:14 PM
No way Cincy will be able to afford him in 3 years. You just have to look at it that you got 7 good years out of him and then move on. I'm not gonna worry about it.

Kind of the way I am looking at it, will love the 3 years left and then deal with whatever then, whether its him or someone else at first. To be honest, I don't want to have that much wrapped up in one player, even as great as that player is (if it cuts into the team and how much we have left to continue being competetive).

Girevik
04-15-2011, 04:16 PM
I don't believe this idea the Reds can not financially "afford" him, the money is there and available. But you have to ask yourself at what cost to the Franchise as a whole.

Yeah, you can "afford" him in the sense that you could manage the payroll by signing him and having 24 other guys making the minimum, but that's not going to be a competative team. I don't know that they can afford his conctract and still have enough left over to pay the rest of the team. I think the only way they can keep him is if he gives the Reds a heafty discount.


Also lets say the Reds decide he is unaffordable, do you let him walk or do you look at trading him?

If you are have a chance at the playoffs, you have to keep him unless you feel that you have a viable replacement and what you get back helps you even more now than he would. You NEVER trade away a shot at a championship just because you don't want to let a guy walk and get nothing.

If at that time Alonso is ready to step up and you can get a pitcher you feel you need to win it all, then fine. But you can't trade him for prospects if you are on the path to the post season.

Simon Rhymon
04-15-2011, 06:00 PM
It's too early to worry about what he will command in the future. There are enough big money teams that will have a need that it really doesn't matter which team looks like it could spend the money today or what teams have a 1B locked up for awhile. Somebody gets hurt, somebody doesn't pan out, whatever.

Three years is a long time. Go back three years and see what you may have predicted for this year as to player movement. It's not even worth thinking about at this point.

bshall2105
04-15-2011, 06:03 PM
I think I'm just going to enjoy having him on the team for now, then when June/July 2013 come around I'll start to worry about it.

brm7675
04-15-2011, 06:16 PM
It's too early to worry about what he will command in the future. There are enough big money teams that will have a need that it really doesn't matter which team looks like it could spend the money today or what teams have a 1B locked up for awhile. Somebody gets hurt, somebody doesn't pan out, whatever.

Three years is a long time. Go back three years and see what you may have predicted for this year as to player movement. It's not even worth thinking about at this point.

I hope the Reds don't take that point of view..

Kingspoint
04-15-2011, 07:26 PM
I don't care one iota what Votto is going to cost us.

He's locked in for the next few years while we try to win a World Series.

Trust me. We'll have plenty of people to choose from who can replace him "well enough" when or if the time comes.

But, that's so long from now, it's not worth thinking about.

lonewolf371
04-15-2011, 07:37 PM
Well the Red Sox just inked Gonzalez to a 7 year $154 million dollar deal, or more then $20 million per season and while he is very good, i think Votto is better. So we now that Albert is going to get at least $25 million if not more per season with his new contract, so can the Reds afford Votto and if so at what cost to not being able to sign other talent?
That's pretty much how good he is, and that's pretty much how much he'll cost.

AintlifeGrande
04-15-2011, 09:14 PM
He better stay,I just invested $60 on ebay for a Votto jersey.:D

Simon Rhymon
04-15-2011, 11:39 PM
It's too early to worry about what he will command in the future.


I hope the Reds don't take that point of view..

I was referring to the fan perspective. You are right on when it comes to the Reds being required to have a long term plan.

mlh1981
04-16-2011, 07:27 PM
The Yankees and Red Sox will have their first basemen locked up for a long time, and some other big market team will snap up Prince Fielder. Whomever gets Pujols will be out of the picture, and Ryan Howard will probably retire a Phillie.

I think a lot of big spenders will be eliminated by this time this issue presents itself.

I wouldn't rule out the Blue Jays, as Votto may be interested in returning home, but for right now, I'll appreciate the moment, what he's done in the past, and what he will do going forward. We have ourselves a real gem on out hands.

redsrolen
04-16-2011, 08:07 PM
From what I've heard, Votto doesn't like changes, and very much enjoys the smaller city of Cincy. Could never picture him in the big city!! Just sayin!;););)::confused:

Simon Rhymon
04-16-2011, 11:29 PM
From what I've heard, Votto doesn't like changes, and very much enjoys the smaller city of Cincy. Could never picture him in the big city!! Just sayin!;););)::confused:

You can count on one hand guys that took less money to stay where they seemed very comfortable.

tkemmerer14
04-17-2011, 04:34 AM
You can count on one hand guys that took less money to stay where they seemed very comfortable.

But every person is different. Votto seems like the kind of guy who might take a hometown discount if he likes it somewhere. I think the Reds hang onto him. Hell if he keeps hittin .450 he might just retire this year and go to cooperstown haha

Road Pop
04-17-2011, 06:53 AM
..... and the count-down begins.... tic-toc.

With the farm team(s) now, the Reds won't keep him if he continues to be the player he is now. Won't put the money up. I'd personally love to have him locked up forever, but I don't see it happening. Bruce got a good contract for what he's done... so never say never. I just don't see it.

RED59
04-18-2011, 11:21 AM
The question should be "What is Votto going to cost Toronto?"

dubc47834
04-18-2011, 11:59 AM
As much as I would like to see Votto stay, once he is in the last year of his contract our best bet I think is to trade him, unless he states we have a real good shot at resigning him. That way we get something. The only way I say we keep him and just lose him for nothing is if we are in a real tight race. Hopefully Jock can work something out as Votto is the best thing to happen to us in a real long time.

DaytonFlyer
04-18-2011, 12:40 PM
The question should be "What is Votto going to cost Toronto?"

Maybe we could get EdE back. :)

I kid, I kid.

Girevik
04-19-2011, 09:02 AM
As much as I would like to see Votto stay, once he is in the last year of his contract our best bet I think is to trade him, unless he states we have a real good shot at resigning him. That way we get something. The only way I say we keep him and just lose him for nothing is if we are in a real tight race. Hopefully Jock can work something out as Votto is the best thing to happen to us in a real long time.

What difference does it make how tight the race is? You still need him for the playoffs and WS even if you're up by 25 games at the deadline. No way to you trade a top player for prospects when you're in the hunt for the post season. You can't trade away a shot at the big trophy no matter how many prospects you get.

bounty37h
04-19-2011, 11:18 AM
Hopefully cost me a couple hundred in World Series gear over the next few seasons.

KYRedLeg
04-20-2011, 01:20 AM
I want nothing more than to see Votto a life-long Red. For that to happen, I think the Reds are going to need to win a series, and start packing the people in GABP. Two birds with one stone, really. Otherwise...

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/3680/vottojays.jpg

Hondo
04-20-2011, 03:35 PM
Well, IMO the deal that Walt did with Votto was a joke. The Reds didnt even get any Free Agent years for Security like most teams get when they buy out arbitration.

Just my Opinion.

Proceed.

Girevik
04-20-2011, 03:36 PM
Well, IMO the deal that Walt did with Votto was a joke. The Reds didnt even get any Free Agent years for Security like most teams get when they buy out arbitration.


I think that's because Votto didn't want to commit to any years beyond arbitration. He wants to get to FA as soon as possible, which is what makes me think he's not likely to stay in a Reds uniform pat that.

dubc47834
04-21-2011, 08:51 AM
What difference does it make how tight the race is? You still need him for the playoffs and WS even if you're up by 25 games at the deadline. No way to you trade a top player for prospects when you're in the hunt for the post season. You can't trade away a shot at the big trophy no matter how many prospects you get.

Thats basically what I said, if we are in the race then keep him. If not we should trade him.

Hondo
04-21-2011, 12:49 PM
I think that's because Votto didn't want to commit to any years beyond arbitration. He wants to get to FA as soon as possible, which is what makes me think he's not likely to stay in a Reds uniform pat that.

Um, yeah. Obviously. That is why it is a bad contract for the Reds.

Why give him a 3 year deal? Why not just go year to year unless you're going to buy out at least 1 free agent year.

lonewolf371
04-21-2011, 01:06 PM
Um, yeah. Obviously. That is why it is a bad contract for the Reds.

Why give him a 3 year deal? Why not just go year to year unless you're going to buy out at least 1 free agent year.
Because there are costs involved in going to arbitration, and you basically have to insult each other in court in order to get what you want.

Finally there's the fact that if Votto were to have a season this year like last year (which is exactly what he's doing so far), there's a 100% chance that he would make MORE in arbitration than the contract we signed.

It was the right move, and there was no way we were going to get more years.

Hondo
04-21-2011, 01:19 PM
Because there are costs involved in going to arbitration, and you basically have to insult each other in court in order to get what you want.

Finally there's the fact that if Votto were to have a season this year like last year (which is exactly what he's doing so far), there's a 100% chance that he would make MORE in arbitration than the contract we signed.

It was the right move, and there was no way we were going to get more years.

I am in total dissagreement with you and there is no way you can say;

"and there was no way we were going to get more years."

Every other team that does contracts like this gets at least 1 Free Agent year because you're are giving the player Security.

Also. Just because you go year to year doesn't mean you go to Arbitration.

Girevik
04-25-2011, 09:53 AM
Thats basically what I said, if we are in the race then keep him. If not we should trade him.

Sorry. You said that if the Reds were "in a real tight race" you'd keep him, so I took that to mean you'd trade him if they were walking away with the division and pretty much garanteed the playoffs.

Girevik
04-25-2011, 09:56 AM
Um, yeah. Obviously. That is why it is a bad contract for the Reds.

Why give him a 3 year deal? Why not just go year to year unless you're going to buy out at least 1 free agent year.

Because then each year you risk going to arbitration, and that's a process that's pretty much bad for everyone. Basically the Reds have to sit in front to the player and "this is why he's not worth the money he's asking for". That can lead to hard feelings and making it more likely the guy will walk when he hits FA.


If it's pretty much a given he's going to be a FA after 3 years, I'd much rather have him wrapped up and avoid the drama each off season for the next 3 years.

dubc47834
04-25-2011, 11:01 AM
Sorry. You said that if the Reds were "in a real tight race" you'd keep him, so I took that to mean you'd trade him if they were walking away with the division and pretty much garanteed the playoffs.

Nah, my bad. Shoulda been more clear.:beerme: