PDA

View Full Version : There's no reason the Reds can't sign Votto to a LTC



Blitz Dorsey
06-10-2011, 12:30 PM
I know the elephant in the room is what will happen with Joey Votto after his contract expires following the 2013 season. He's going to command a truckload of money and no one disputes that. And how can a "small-market" team afford that, right?

Wrong. I fully think the Reds will sign Votto and here is why:

1. Yes, he will command a lot of money, but he's not going to be looking to be the highest-paid player in MLB or anything of that sort. Whatever Pujols gets, Votto will get close to that, but not quite as much. Plus, it will be a full two years after Pujols signs his deal. (Unless the Reds re-sign Votto before his contract runs out, which would be even better.) So, even if Votto gets $25 million per season, I think the Reds will be willing to do it.

2. Votto is not a "risky" signing. He's not a pitcher, he's an everyday player, and that helps. Pitchers are such a huge risk. Also, even just looking at hitters, Votto is not a "streaky" player who has one good year, then sucks the next, then is great the next, then sucks the next. He's consistent as hell. If you are going to drop a ton of money on someone when you're a small-market club, it better be on someone who you're sure is a great player and isn't some flash in the pan. I think we can all agree Votto has proven he is the real deal and not someone who's had a couple or three lucky years. He's one of the most-natural hitters in all of MLB. He's the kind of guy that will be a legitimate threat to win the Triple Crown every year. Might never do it, but is the kind of hitter that could pull of it (like he nearly did last year).

3. A lot of contracts will come off the books after this season. The Reds will be gaining $12 million by not having Cordero (actually $11 million including his buyout of the club option). Yes, Cordero is having an excellent year and his contract turned out to be anything but the "albatross" many Reds fans feared -- myself included -- but no way they bring back a 36-year-old closer at $12 million next year. So, the Reds will have that money to spend. Also, as much as we all like Ramon Hernandez, there is no doubt this is his final season with the Reds. There will be another team out there willing to pay him the $3 or $4 million he currently makes with the Reds due to the great season he's having and the lack of catchers on the market. However, it won't be the Reds paying him that again. With Mesoraco waiting (and at a cheap price the next several years) and Hanigan locked up for the next 3 years, it will be a Mes/Hanigan platoon next year for sure.

4. The other big gun offensively -- Jay Bruce -- is already locked up through 2016 with a very-favorable contract from the Reds' standpoint. Got a nice bargain there by locking Jayboy up before he really exploded like he has this year. So, it's not like the Reds need to worry about "But what are we going to do with Bruce if we sign Votto?" They'll still have another three years of Jay Bruce even after Votto's current contract expires. That is a good position to be in. ... The Reds will have to make a decision with Brandon Phillips after the 2012 season (I think they'll pick up his option for next year for sure) but other than that there are no key position players that the team would risk losing by "holding back" money so they can pay Votto what it takes. ... And eventually Drew Stubbs will need be signed to a LTC, but I think that will be taken care of, perhaps this offseason. And the Reds have no risk of losing him via free agency for several years anyway.

5. Votto is the kind of man off-the-field that a team wants to be the face of their franchise. He's not going to do anything stupid that embarrasses the club. I can see a guy like Castellini saying "This is more than I ever thought I'd be willing to pay a player, but he's damn good on the field and he's a good guy off it. Let's do it. We can't risk losing him."

klw
06-10-2011, 01:55 PM
The reason the Reds may be unable to sign Votto to a LTC is that he may be unwilling to sign one. The Reds can not force him to put his signature on the papers.

Homer Bailey
06-10-2011, 01:57 PM
The reason the Reds may be unable to sign Votto to a LTC is that he may be unwilling to sign one. The Reds can not force him to put his signature on the papers.

There is also another reason. They probably won't have enough money.

So can we get the thread title changed to "There are at least two reasons why the reds can't sign Votto to a LTC"

HeatherC1212
06-10-2011, 01:59 PM
I agree with you Blitz but I'm sorry this is going to turn into negative thread #1,450,131 with 5+ pages probably before I even get home from work. :(

_Sir_Charles_
06-10-2011, 02:01 PM
I agree with you Blitz but I'm sorry this is going to turn into negative thread #1,450,131 with 5+ pages probably before I even get home from work. :(

I agree too. Wait, a thread turning negative in RZ?!? I don't believe it. ;)

Blitz Dorsey
06-10-2011, 02:04 PM
I love the Captain Obvious comments like "They can't force him to sign" so that's a reason.

OK, if Votto dies, that would also prevent him from signing a LTC. But I wasn't talking about extreme examples. Now back to our regularly-scheduled programming...

Patrick Bateman
06-10-2011, 02:04 PM
So, in summary, other than the fact that Votto has explained that he doesn't want to sign a LTD right now, the Reds may not have enough money, and that Votto may want 25M+, there are no excuses for not signing him to long term deal.

Gotcha.

Blitz Dorsey
06-10-2011, 02:05 PM
So, in summary, other than the fact that Votto has explained that he doesn't want to sign a LTD right now, the Reds may not have enough money, and that Votto may want 25M+, there are no excuses for not signing him to long term deal.

Gotcha.

Who said right now? And sarcasm is much better when it's actually funny.

RedsManRick
06-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Can they sign him? Probably. But I don't see the point in having the discussion until he's open to doing so. Personally, I'm happy to let things play out. He's got a lot more room to decline than he has to improve. And even if he's likely to continue to be an elite player, nobody is a sure thing. And for a team like this one, committing 25% or more to one player is just asking for trouble.

Patrick Bateman
06-10-2011, 02:07 PM
Someone's a little defensive today.

I(heart)Freel
06-10-2011, 02:11 PM
The deadline is July 2013. The Reds can NOT do what the Cards are doing with Albert. That's a dangerous game of chicken. You have to get more than draft picks if your marquee player leaves.

klw
06-10-2011, 03:00 PM
I love the Captain Obvious comments like "They can't force him to sign" so that's a reason.

OK, if Votto dies, that would also prevent him from signing a LTC. But I wasn't talking about extreme examples. Now back to our regularly-scheduled programming...

Well my response was actually lacking its usual snarky nature and was not intended to be on just a captain obvious basis. If we go back to ancient history to when Votto was signed to his 3 year contract Votto said this:


“I don’t know as far as beyond three years,” he said. “I think that’s a very unfair question to ask. This is not me saying I don’t want to be here. But last year was a difficult year. This year was a better year for me. It’s really hard to think three years ahead, five years ahead, seven years ahead. When (Troy) Tulowitzki signed that 10-year contract or whatever it was, I was blown away. I can’t imagine seeing myself 10 years from now and saying: ‘I want to be here.’ It’s an overwhelming thing to ask a young person like myself and say: ‘Here’s a lot of money be happy with this over 10 years. Deal with it.’ You don’t know where you’re going to be in one, two, three years.”
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110116/SPT04/301160061/Reds-Joey-Votto-agree-3-year-deal

So it is a very real possibility that Votto will not want to sign a Long Term Contract. I am not sure if you meant that the Reds should be able to sign him now or at the end of his current deal. Even at the end of the current deal. the question of whether he will ever want to commit to more than a few year deal at a time could still be there. Is 3 years the max length he will ever want to do? Do you consider that an LTC or are you only thinking 5+ years.

I agree with your reasoning that the Reds should be able to sign him financially to a deal but the other question to ask is even if the Reds have the money to potentially wrap him up if the money would not be better spent at other positions. Is the value you get from an elite 1b so much higher than a what you can get from a lower production cheaper player worth 20 to 25% of your budget.

reds44
06-10-2011, 03:16 PM
I think what the Reds do with Yonder Alonso at the deadline will give you a preview of what they think will happen with Votto.

remdog
06-10-2011, 03:29 PM
I though Blitz's overall view was good. There is a considerable amount of time before a decision has to be made. Sure, no one can force Joey to sign on the dotted line but what if he breaks a leg on home plate and is out for two years?

As for Alonzo, he's hitting well now at AAA (finally) but I'm not sure that he's going to do that if/when he gets to the Big Leagues. To me, he may not have a lot of trading value. Except for elite players like Joey, Albert and Adrian, first basemen can pretty much be filled either internally or with a simple trade or free agent signing.

Still, I think that Blitz made his point---the Reds CAN sign Votto if they want to do it.

Rem

reds44
06-10-2011, 03:33 PM
Hypothetically, lets say the Reds wanted to make a run at Carlos Zambrano. You don't think the Cubs would love to have Alonso?

OesterPoster
06-10-2011, 03:37 PM
Hypothetically, lets say the Reds wanted to make a run at Carlos Zambrano. You don't think the Cubs would love to have Alonso?

A smart Cubs team would be interested in Alonso. But I have the feeling that they're convinced either Pujols or Fielder is signing with them in the offseason.

RANDY IN INDY
06-10-2011, 03:38 PM
A lot of things can happen to affect it, either way. Injury. Production or lack thereof. Someone knocking down the door in the minors. Votto may or may not want to re-sign with the Reds. The Reds may or may not want to re-sign Votto. If he has another MVP season between now and then, it will most likely make it a lot more difficult. I don't look for Votto to fall off the map, statistically, but a tough season could affect this as well.

I(heart)Freel
06-10-2011, 03:48 PM
I think what the Reds do with Yonder Alonso at the deadline will give you a preview of what they think will happen with Votto.

While that's an interesting point, I don't think it's the end-all, be-all on the matter. If a great deal works out this year and involves Yonder, the Reds could still think Votto leaves in 2013. First-base isn't a terrible position to fill from free agency or the minors (e.g. Neftali Soto could be ready by then).

Blitz Dorsey
06-10-2011, 04:10 PM
I though Blitz's overall view was good. There is a considerable amount of time before a decision has to be made. Sure, no one can force Joey to sign on the dotted line but what if he breaks a leg on home plate and is out for two years?

As for Alonzo, he's hitting well now at AAA (finally) but I'm not sure that he's going to do that if/when he gets to the Big Leagues. To me, he may not have a lot of trading value. Except for elite players like Joey, Albert and Adrian, first basemen can pretty much be filled either internally or with a simple trade or free agent signing.

Still, I think that Blitz made his point---the Reds CAN sign Votto if they want to do it.

Rem

Exactly what I was saying. And with the recent winning (beginning with last year's divisional title) and attendance being pretty damn good for a "small-market" team, the Reds have a little more cash to throw around than some might think. While GABP is no palace, it's still a relatively new stadium and is very fan-friendly. (OK, other than parking. Ha.) That also helps the bottom line. And it's not like the Reds have to pay out of their own pocket for the stadium. That's covered by the taxpayers. It's a pretty good situation to be in (not as good as the Bengals' even-more of a sweetheart deal, but still damn good).

So, is there a chance Votto won't sign with the Reds after his current deal is up (or while his current deal exists)? Of course. I was just trying to say people are way too quick to write off the possibility that Votto will be a Red for life (or at least close). I hear people say all the time "Oh, no way we/the Reds will be able to afford him." But I completely disagree with that. Bruce is already locked up at a very cheap rate for someone of his skill set, the Reds won't have $12 million per year invested in a closer and that money can go straight to Votto, they won't have any money tied up in catching (but they'll have good catchers) ... and I think they'll be able to pay Joey Votto $25 mil per year if that's what it takes. And unlike most players, the Reds might be willing to give it to someone like Joey Votto. They could have kept Adam Dunn if they wanted (not that it would have taken anywhere near $25 mil per year) but they didn't want to. But I bet the Reds' brass sees a future Hall of Famer in Votto and will do whatever it takes to build their offense around him and Bruce. And Bruce is already locked up! Phillips is the wildcard for me, but at least that decision won't have to be made until after the 2012 season (presuming the Reds pick up his option, which I'm sure they will).

AmarilloRed
06-10-2011, 04:30 PM
Don't forget Cueto. His contract is 7.4 million in 2013 and 10 million in 2014. You'll have to budget that money along with what the Reds decide for Phillips.

klw
06-10-2011, 04:33 PM
Don't forget Cueto. His contract is 7.4 million in 2013 and 10 million in 2014. You'll have to budget that money along with what the Reds decide for Phillips.

Hey there you are. I was just thinking the other day we hadn't seen you around these parts much of late.

bucksfan2
06-10-2011, 04:35 PM
Well run organizations can afford to pay MVP caliber players. It takes a good farm system as well as the said player to produce at that current level. The key is in drafting and developing to put players around Votto. The last thing you want is to let him walk and spend countless dollars chasing a suitable replacement. Heck look at what the Cubs spent on the free agent market to get a "name" 1b.

There are some risks to the big time contract. The player could go all Ken Griffey Jr and be plagued by injuries and not be the player he once was. You can't sign Votto to a big time contract then suffer a bunch of misses in free agency and the draft. But if you do it right through the draft you can continue to churn out a competitive team.

KronoRed
06-10-2011, 04:37 PM
There is also another reason. They probably won't have enough money.

So can we get the thread title changed to "There are at least two reasons why the reds can't sign Votto to a LTC"

Three, just maybe the Reds don't want to sign Votto long term.

It's possible.

AmarilloRed
06-10-2011, 04:42 PM
Hey there you are. I was just thinking the other day we hadn't seen you around these parts much of late.

I was away for a while. I spent a lot of time last year concentrating on passing the life and health test and changing careers from retail to insurance. I should be posting more in the near future.

Benihana
06-10-2011, 04:54 PM
I wouldn't say he's a slam dunk to stay healthy. He's already spent plenty of time on the DL early in his career. Imagine what he could be like as a guy in his mid-30s. Look at the Joe Mauer. I don't think it behooves any "small market" team to pay anyone more than $20MM per year, especially on a contract that extends over 5 years (which is assuredly what he'll ask for and get).

If we could get him for 4-5 years and <$100MM, of course I'd love to have him stay. But if he's looking for Top 5 player in the game type money (which he qualifies for and has indicated he's interested in), I'm not sure that should fit into the Reds' plans.

kaldaniels
06-10-2011, 05:50 PM
I just can't agree with the thread title. I can think of 150 million reasons why the Reds would be unable to sign Votto.

Unassisted
06-11-2011, 08:54 AM
When you title a thread with an absolute, you're daring other posters to knock a chip off of your shoulder.

Votto's a worldly guy who hails from the 5th-largest city in North America. Maybe he doesn't want to spend his entire career playing for a team in the 118th largest city in North America?

HokieRed
06-11-2011, 09:04 AM
Three, just maybe the Reds don't want to sign Votto long term.

It's possible.

Votto's lifetime OPS is .961. What will Alonso put up? I'm notoriously an Alonso fan so I'd put a high number on that, but maybe a reasonable one is .850. How much is that .111 difference worth?

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 10:04 AM
When you title a thread with an absolute, you're daring other posters to knock a chip off of your shoulder.

Votto's a worldly guy who hails from the 5th-largest city in North America. Maybe he doesn't want to spend his entire career playing for a team in the 118th largest city in North America?

Hey don't knock Cincy. Visit cincinnatiusa.com! (can't get that cheesy music out of my head) :D

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 10:22 AM
Is the value you get from an elite 1b so much higher than a what you can get from a lower production cheaper player worth 20 to 25% of your budget.

Absolutely. Watching Pujols all of these years, I can tell you that the production he has given the Cards dwarfs anything a cheaper, lower productive player will give you and fully makes up for the salary we have paid him or will pay him. I mean, its not even a discussion. I think we can all agree that Votto, right now, is a Pujols type player (ie, takes walks, doesn't strike out much, high OBP, high BA, epic power, RBI Machine, consistent, excellent defense etc). Spending 20% might sound like a lot but having that player in the lineup as a constant makes the whole lineup around that player better and puts those players in correct spots in the lineup to succeed. We all see teams such as Oakland and San Diego struggle to do anything on offense because they do not have guys like this. Having guys like this in your lineup will almost always make your team a contender.

I think the Reds would be crazy not to sign Votto to a long term contract.

Furthermore, if the Reds do not sign Votto to a long term contract, doesn't this sort of put out there in the free agent market that they are not willing to sign big name free agents? In a bidding war for future players, something like that could hurt the Reds. Yeah, you might have great cost certainty if you don't sign Votto but the Cards and Cubs will always get the better players in free agency because agents know they are willing to pay. The Rays, in my opinion, are the exception that sort of proves the rule that teams just cannot depend on the draft to put together a sound, contending ball club. All teams need some sort of free agent players to succeed in modern baseball. That is one factor I don't think a lot of Reds fans are looking at.

Caveat Emperor
06-11-2011, 10:48 AM
I love Joey Votto. I'm happy he's a Red, and it's a joy to watch him play the game 30 nights per year only having to make a 15 minute drive and pay $10 for a ticket. I hope he plays 10 more years, wins a couple rings, and retires as a Red.

Having said that, he plays a position that is arguably the easiest to fill on the diamond, and a position where the Reds have an in-house replacement OPS'ng over .900 in AAA, and two more people who theoretically could see a move to that position (Mesoraco, Grandal) before it's all said and done.

Looking at it from a purely baseball point of view, it might not even be in the Reds best interest to go long-term and high-dollar with Joey Votto.

Blitz Dorsey
06-11-2011, 12:03 PM
I just can't agree with the thread title. I can think of 150 million reasons why the Reds would be unable to sign Votto.

Go for it. :beerme:

Blitz Dorsey
06-11-2011, 12:04 PM
Absolutely. Watching Pujols all of these years, I can tell you that the production he has given the Cards dwarfs anything a cheaper, lower productive player will give you and fully makes up for the salary we have paid him or will pay him. I mean, its not even a discussion. I think we can all agree that Votto, right now, is a Pujols type player (ie, takes walks, doesn't strike out much, high OBP, high BA, epic power, RBI Machine, consistent, excellent defense etc). Spending 20% might sound like a lot but having that player in the lineup as a constant makes the whole lineup around that player better and puts those players in correct spots in the lineup to succeed. We all see teams such as Oakland and San Diego struggle to do anything on offense because they do not have guys like this. Having guys like this in your lineup will almost always make your team a contender.

I think the Reds would be crazy not to sign Votto to a long term contract.

Furthermore, if the Reds do not sign Votto to a long term contract, doesn't this sort of put out there in the free agent market that they are not willing to sign big name free agents? In a bidding war for future players, something like that could hurt the Reds. Yeah, you might have great cost certainty if you don't sign Votto but the Cards and Cubs will always get the better players in free agency because agents know they are willing to pay. The Rays, in my opinion, are the exception that sort of proves the rule that teams just cannot depend on the draft to put together a sound, contending ball club. All teams need some sort of free agent players to succeed in modern baseball. That is one factor I don't think a lot of Reds fans are looking at.

This. The Cardinals aren't just having a good season on the field. Even their fans are making high-quality posts.

jojo
06-11-2011, 01:49 PM
Who said right now? And sarcasm is much better when it's actually funny.

Actually it was kinda funny. The biggest wildcard IMHO is we have no idea how much money Votto will as for... Given he didn't sell the Reds more years and his final year is $17.5M, it's probably reasonable to expect him to try to get all that the market will bare when he hits free agency.

The Reds really haven't been in play for those types of players recently.

I'd also point out that we have no real idea exactly how much money will will be on the books after the 2013 season.

I can think of several reasons why the Reds couldn't sign him including, he doesn't want to sign, the Reds are outbid, or the Reds decide they can't afford what he seeks.

jojo
06-11-2011, 01:52 PM
I love Joey Votto. I'm happy he's a Red, and it's a joy to watch him play the game 30 nights per year only having to make a 15 minute drive and pay $10 for a ticket. I hope he plays 10 more years, wins a couple rings, and retires as a Red.

Having said that, he plays a position that is arguably the easiest to fill on the diamond, and a position where the Reds have an in-house replacement OPS'ng over .900 in AAA, and two more people who theoretically could see a move to that position (Mesoraco, Grandal) before it's all said and done.

Looking at it from a purely baseball point of view, it might not even be in the Reds best interest to go long-term and high-dollar with Joey Votto.

Yep.

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 01:54 PM
It's all about marginal costs. Is Votto gonna be worth the price difference between him and his replacement? Or could that money be spent better on another position?

savafan
06-11-2011, 02:05 PM
It's all about marginal costs. Is Votto gonna be worth the price difference between him and his replacement? Or could that money be spent better on another position?

Perhaps the money could be better spent somewhere else, I'm not going to argue that point. I think one thing we haven't looked at yet in this thread is goodwill to the fans. Joey is arguably the most popular player in Cincinnati. Castellini knows what Lindner didn't get, that if you want people to come out to the ballpark and support you, you have to throw them a bone. I think Joey will be a Red beyond 2013.

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 02:06 PM
Goodwill should be considered as well, sure.

Unassisted
06-11-2011, 02:16 PM
Joey is arguably the most popular player in Cincinnati. Is he still more popular than Jay Bruce? In other online places this season, I see much more love for Bruce than Votto.

AmarilloRed
06-11-2011, 02:20 PM
Look at Pujols previous contract. The Cardinals budget when he signed it was 83 million, about what it is for the Reds right now.Their budget is now 110 million, but it's only that high because of their success. The Cardinals made the playoffs 4 times and won 2 WS during the 7 year contract. He was a MVP candidate just about every year during the course of the contract.

A lot will depend on the Reds success the next 2 years. If they can make the playoffs and/or get close to a WS in that time, the player budget will follow.Votto would be interested in signing long term with the Reds under those circumstances. I won't say it'll be 110 million, but it should be higher than 80 milllion. If we fail to make the playoffs either year, you should expect Votto to want to enter FA and find success elsewhere.

savafan
06-11-2011, 02:21 PM
Is he still more popular than Jay Bruce? In other online places this season, I see much more love for Bruce than Votto.

I think it's very close. I imagine, though I wasn't around at the time, that it's a lot like Johnny and Pete in the 1970's

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 02:44 PM
This. The Cardinals aren't just having a good season on the field. Even their fans are making high-quality posts.

hehe, I'll drink to that :beerme::beerme::beerme:

757690
06-11-2011, 02:48 PM
Look at Pujols previous contract. The Cardinals budget when he signed it was 83 million, about what it is for the Reds right now.Their budget is now 110 million, but it's only that high because of their success. The Cardinals made the playoffs 4 times and won 2 WS during the 7 year contract. He was a MVP candidate just about every year during the course of the contract.

A lot will depend on the Reds success the next 2 years. If they can make the playoffs and/or get close to a WS in that time, the player budget will follow.Votto would be interested in signing long term with the Reds under those circumstances. I won't say it'll be 110 million, but it should be higher than 80 milllion. If we fail to make the playoffs either year, you should expect Votto to want to enter FA and find success elsewhere.

Great post. :beerme:

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 02:50 PM
Look at Pujols previous contract. The Cardinals budget when he signed it was 83 million, about what it is for the Reds right now.Their budget is now 110 million, but it's only that high because of their success. The Cardinals made the playoffs 4 times and won 2 WS during the 7 year contract. He was a MVP candidate just about every year during the course of the contract.

Even with the Pujols contract, the Cardinals have made it an effort to stay under 100 million for most of that contract. The running joke around here was to call owner Dewitt, Dewallet because many fans (wrongly in my opinion) called him cheep. Most of the time, the Cards hovered around 90-95 million. The only reason for it going up this year was because of Holliday and Berkman, both contracts well worth it in my opinion. If the Reds cannot increase payroll by 10-15 million, there is some financial trouble in Cincy. That should be easy to obtain in the modern day economics of baseball. If not, the ownership of the Reds has to be held accountable in my opinion.

757690
06-11-2011, 02:54 PM
Having said that, he plays a position that is arguably the easiest to fill on the diamond

The Reds will not need to replace Votto with a 1B, they will need to replace him with a perennial MVP candidate and 1.000+ OPS bat.

This is what Mike Theirry was correctly referring to in his post about Pujols. Votto is much more to the Reds than just a 1B.

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 02:57 PM
The Reds will not need to replace Votto with a 1B, they will need to replace him with a perennial MVP candidate and 1.000+ OPS bat.

This is what Mike Theirry was correctly referring to in his post about Pujols. Votto is much more to the Reds than just a 1B.

Oh come on, are you telling me that a Daric Barton type guy won't be a reasonable replacement for Votto? :);):D

Blitz Dorsey
06-11-2011, 09:51 PM
Seriously, I love the (incorrect) idea that "He plays 1B, there's tons of good players at that position. We can replace him easily."

Good luck with all that.

Just look at the "studs" the Reds have had at first base over the last 30 years. Hell, Sean Casey is arguably the best first baseman we've had since I've been a diehard Reds fan ... and as much as I love his personality he's not exactly a game-changer. And that's the best we've had in 30+ years! Other than Votto of course, who is an MVP that OPS's over 1.000. Yeah, that will be no problem to replace. I'm sure there's another Scott Hatteberg out there (who I actually loved at the time) who can pick up the slack no problem.

Hal Morris is also on the list of "best Reds first basemen of my lifetime," in fact he was better than Casey some years. But Votto is light years better than both of them. If the Reds make the mistake of letting Votto leave, my goodness it's going to be a dark day in Cincinnati. The good news IMO is I don't think it will ever come to that.

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 09:56 PM
Blitz, no one thinks you can plug in someone else and get equal production as Votto. But it may be possible to plug in a lesser paid player at 1B and use the difference in cash to make the Reds a better team.

Blitz Dorsey
06-11-2011, 10:48 PM
Blitz, no one thinks you can plug in someone else and get equal production as Votto. But it may be possible to plug in a lesser paid player at 1B and use the difference in cash to make the Reds a better team.

I hear you.

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 10:52 PM
Blitz, no one thinks you can plug in someone else and get equal production as Votto. But it may be possible to plug in a lesser paid player at 1B and use the difference in cash to make the Reds a better team.

A lot of times it doesn't really work that way though. That is the issue we are going through right now in St. Louis. Many people here don't want to sign Pujols and use the extra money we "save" to get a couple of players. To me, there are two important issues/rebuttals to the whole "save money and spend money on other players" issue

1. Right now Votto makes $7.4 million. Some numbers I have heard from some of you on this thread range from $20 million per year to $25 million per year on Votto's potential long term contract. Lets say the Reds don't sign Votto, the Reds essentially save $7-$8 million per year. Will Reds management actually increase their payroll to add up to $20 million in salary? Right now, I'm getting a sense that the Reds will not increase their payroll that much. I may be wrong. However with the lack of free agent signings this off season plus the reluctance to dealing chips to acquire players like Jose Reyes, King Felix, etc; it just doesn't look like they will looking at it from an outsiders perspective. If they don't add salary, what kind of players will they be able to get for $8 million in this market? They might be able to get a decent player but nothing that will even get you close to the production Votto gives you and certainly the Reds won't be getting as many players as you would hope with just $8 million. That leads into the second point.

2. Lets say the Reds make an effort to expand payroll. They won't sign Votto for $25 million and they won't expand payroll to $25 million. However, lets say they expand the payroll to $15-$20 million. Realistically, I don't see them doing this because their payroll is at $76 million (from what I read on the interwebs) and that would push their payroll to at least $90 million. However, this is a hypothetical situation so lets just go with it. Anyway, the Reds payroll increases by $20 million in this hypothetical situation. What will that get the Reds? Right now, lets face it, free agency is out of control. Jason Werth, Ryan Howard, and Carl Crawford contracts made the market even more crazy. The way the market is going right now, it will be difficult to get a very good player for under $18 million. I find it interesting that the $17 million Matt Holliday contract the Cards got slammed for looks like a great cost saving deal for the Cards right now with the wackiness of free agency. Lets also assume that that this hypothetical player they got for $18 million isn't going to give you the same production as Votto gives you. That will leave about $2 million to spend on another player. Currently, $2 million is a laughable contract in the free agent market. With the addition of the hypothetical good player plus a league average to below average player really give you the kind of production that Votto would have gotten you? Its almost as if its a net loss at that point.

All this stuff is hypothetical but I believe is a real world scenario in the current baseball market. I just don't think you will be able to get a lot of good players for the money the Reds will "save". It seems to make more sense for the Reds to bite the bullet and pay Votto the money. You know what you will get from Votto and he will be a constant in your lineup for years.

Plus one other thing you have to take into consideration is what the free agent market will look like when Votto's current contract is up. It could even be more insane than it already is right now, two or three years down the road. I might agree with the philosophy of save money and get several different players if there was certainty in the free market. However, there is no end in sight to the insanity of large contracts any time soon.

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 11:10 PM
You know what you will get from Votto and he will be a constant in your lineup for years.

And right there is the problem with your point. Look, it could make sense for the Reds to sign Votto. However, you are so quick to poo-poo the spending money on other players that you fail to consider Votto may not live up to his end of the 150 Million or so.

No one knows what the future will bring, so if you are writing the checks, you figure your best estimate of what a given player will do, and base your decision(s) on that.

Constructing a roster in the macro-sense is not rocket science. You try to get the most bang for your buck (especially with the Reds' payroll). If you project more value (on the field, in the community, in the clubhouse) from other guys for your 150 Million, you pass on Votto. I find it hard to argue this point but am willing to listen.

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 11:17 PM
And right there is the problem with your point. Look, it could make sense for the Reds to sign Votto. However, you are so quick to poo-poo the spending money on other players that you fail to consider Votto may not live up to his end of the 150 Million or so.

I'm not quick to poo-poo the idea of spending money on other players. The whole Pujols contract issue has been discussed in Cardinals fans blogs for years. I used to have the opinion of saving money and spending on other players like you did. I have slowly come around to the idea of paying Pujols over time.

You are absolutely right that Votto might not live up to his end of the contract. However, the other players you sign in his place might not live up to their contract. Free agency and projecting a players future production is all a crap shoot. Still, until Votto proves that he can't do it, I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt, just as I'm going to give Pujols benefit of doubt that he will still be a great player 4-5 years from now.


If you project more value (on the field, in the community, in the clubhouse) from other guys for your 150 Million, you pass on Votto

How can you project that you will have more value without Votto than with him? Projections are speculatory and generally a good number of projections do not add up in real life scenarios.

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 11:25 PM
You have been witness to perhaps the greatest long term contract in the history of the free agent era Mike. Pujols has been a steal for the Cards. So I understand how you are a fan of these type deals.

But let me ask you this. Straight up.

What is the maximum per year you would pay Albert Pujols after this year before you let him walk? What is the maximum number of years you would sign him to this figure?

kaldaniels
06-11-2011, 11:32 PM
While I may be grilling you here Mike, I did read in the other thread you've been sick lately. Hope you are feeling better. :beerme:

HokieRed
06-11-2011, 11:33 PM
To try to get some quantitative specificity into this discussion, I'll reintroduce figures I used earlier. Votto's lifetime OPS is .961. His replacement, should it come to that, will likely be Yonder Alonso. Now who knows exactly what Alonso will do, but let's assume he can OPS .850. Is that difference in OPS of .111 worth what Votto will have to be paid? If the Reds trade Votto, they will get not only salary savings but also the players in return--so there's a double benefit really. That said, I still hope they try to sign Votto because I think there's an issue of fidelity to the fan base when you're dealing with a player of this caliber. I expect them to try to sign him to a LTC but to fail, as I cannot see how any agent could advise Votto to sign without testing the free agent market.

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 11:33 PM
You have been witness to perhaps the greatest long term contract in the history of the free agent era Mike. Pujols has been a steal for the Cards. So I understand how you are a fan of these type deals.

But let me ask you this. Straight up.

What is the maximum per year you would pay Albert Pujols after this year before you let him walk? What is the maximum number of years you would sign him to this figure?

I have thought a lot about this and I think there are several options. I offer Pujols 5 years, $30 million per year or something like 10 years, $250 million. In that last scenario, I would pay a lot of money up front for the first 5 years (possibly 27-30 million) but towards the end of the contract scale back the money. I would also ask Pujols agent if they could back date some of the money to where he would receive it after he retires sort of like what the Mets are doing with Bobby Bonilla.

I could also see the Cards getting creative with his contract. They might offer him part ownership of the team when he retires. There is a by law within the rules of baseball that will allow this to happen with permission from the commissioner.

There are a multitude of things the Cards could do with Pujols and his contract.

Now if he is asking for more than 30 million, its time to say thank you for your time spent here in St. Louis. :)

MikeThierry
06-11-2011, 11:34 PM
While I may be grilling you here Mike, I did read in the other thread you've been sick lately. Hope you are feeling better. :beerme:

Thanks man, really appreciate it.

757690
06-12-2011, 12:55 AM
I think a big key is Bruce.

My belief, and it's just a belief, not based on any evidence other than what I've seen in the 40 years I've been watching baseball, is that in order to contend you need three things, pitching, defense and at least one hammer in the lineup.

If Bruce can be that hammer, i don't have a problem with losing Votto at some point. But if Bruce is just a .850 or so OPS guy, then I would do everything possible to keep Votto or to use him to get another hammer.

You need that scary #3 or 4 hitter to balance out the rest of the lineup, imo.

edabbs44
06-12-2011, 06:31 AM
Baseball is a business and, in this situation, the FO has to check their emotions at the door and do what's best for the franchise when the time comes. The last thing they need is for them to be dealing with a Bernie Williams situation in 2021.

If Votto chooses not to stick around, he will just be another in a long line of "face of the small market team" guys to leave for money. Another Giambi. Another Johan. Another Adrian Gonzalez. It is Walt's job to maximize the situation, whether it is keeping him around in 2013 as they make the drive for the pennant and take their picks or trading him at the deadline if the right deal is on the table.

I'm fairly resigned to the fact that he will be gone. It happens.

Caveat Emperor
06-13-2011, 12:34 AM
Seriously, I love the (incorrect) idea that "He plays 1B, there's tons of good players at that position. We can replace him easily."

Good luck with all that.

There are always quality first basemen that can be had. If all else fails, you can move just about any other player on the diamond to first base and let him play there.

Are you going to replace Joey Votto? Almost certainly not.

But, as someone pointed out earlier, you have to ask yourself what's more valuable to the Cincinnati Reds:

1. Joey Votto making $17-$20 million dollars per year, OPS'ing 1.000 and playing great defense.

or

2. Yonder Alonso making league minimum, OPS'ing .850 and playing OK defense AND a hammer TOR starter making $15 million per year.

Blitz Dorsey
04-03-2012, 12:11 AM
Did I just pull a complete jerk move and bump a thread I started last year? Yes, yes I did!

I'm in a good mood gents (and ladies).