PDA

View Full Version : Reds Front office Blaming attendance why they wont do anything this off season????



Redsfansince72
08-14-2011, 03:17 AM
posted tonight on mlbtraderumors:

The Reds have not seen a significant spike in attendance coming off last season's division title and will likely be relatively inactive this offseason.

They cant be serious to think because of their poor play and 10 games OUT, thats going to entice fans to buy tickets??? that's such a SLAP in the face of Reds fans.. WINNING last years division has seen attendance grow.. 12 sellouts before they started failing at staying in the race doesnt mean anything??

What a joke.. Please sell the team to Mark Cuban, BOB!!!!

LeDoux
08-14-2011, 03:37 AM
I don't think this is from the FO. Its just some speculation to spur traffic on the website.

Krawhitham
08-14-2011, 04:10 AM
posted tonight on mlbtraderumors:

The Reds have not seen a significant spike in attendance coming off last season's division title and will likely be relatively inactive this offseason.

They cant be serious to think because of their poor play and 10 games OUT, thats going to entice fans to buy tickets??? that's such a SLAP in the face of Reds fans.. WINNING last years division has seen attendance grow.. 12 sellouts before they started failing at staying in the race doesnt mean anything??

What a joke.. Please sell the team to Mark Cuban, BOB!!!!

Attendance has been horrible for a team that is the defending central champions with the league MVP on it.

The strange part in the attendance has been going upward since that team tanked.

On July 18th they were 3.5 games back and drew 22,000

Today they are 10 games out and had 31,000 people and 28,000 yesterday

Before the tanking attendance was nothing but terrible, if being champs with an MVP does not help attendance why should the owner spend more money?


1st half of the season minus the Yankees they averaged 24,647, the 2nd half the have averaged 30,017

For the complete season they are averaging 27,997, last season it was 25,438.

The Reds are at max salary for the attendance they get, and an extra 2559 people per game does not come close to paying for the 124 million they committed themselves to last offseason because they thought being central champs and have the MVP would be a giant boost to the attendance. Well it did not help much at all, why should the owner spend more money when more people do not show up, like I said he spent 124 million last offseason and saw no return on the investment, why invest even more?


Reds average ticket price is $19 so the extra 2,559 people get the Reds $3,938,301

fewfirstchoice
08-14-2011, 04:32 AM
Attendance is horrible because they didn't do anything this past off season. If the FO would have made a significant upgrade to LF, SS, or a true #1 starter the Reds would be in the running for the playoffs this season and attendance would be great. This owner and FO don't seem to get it. After a central division championship they should have spent some money and keep this team competitive and they fans would have shown up in bunches. They just don't get it.

ervinsm84
08-14-2011, 06:34 AM
Attendance has been horrible for a team that is the defending central champions with the league MVP on it.

The strange part in the attendance has been going upward since that team tanked.

On July 18th they were 3.5 games back and drew 22,000

Today they are 10 games out and had 31,000 people and 28,000 yesterday

Before the tanking attendance was nothing but terrible, if being champs with an MVP does not help attendance why should the owner spend more money?


1st half of the season minus the Yankees they averaged 24,647, the 2nd half the have averaged 30,017

For the complete season they are averaging 27,997, last season it was 25,438.

The Reds are at max salary for the attendance they get, and an extra 2559 people per game does not come close to paying for the 124 million they committed themselves to last offseason because they thought being central champs and have the MVP would be a giant boost to the attendance. Well it did not help much at all, why should the owner spend more money when more people do not show up, like I said he spent 124 million last offseason and saw no return on the investment, why invest even more?


Reds average ticket price is $19 so the extra 2,559 people get the Reds $3,938,301

Not sure where you came up with that, but the Reds played at pittsburgh on july 18. July 17th was a sunday afternoon home game that drew 24,841.

Also, saying the front office "spent 124 million in the offseason" is a bit deceptive. They're not paying 124 million this year. Thats including future years salaries bc guys like bruce and votto got extensions . The payroll for 2011 is 75,947,134 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team.


As far as why attendence has increased throughout the season, Id imagine a lot of that has to do with the the first part of the season being played in march/april/may with kids in school and weather not as nice. Intuitively I think June-Aug should always have higher attendance barring the team being one of the worst in baseball (as frustrating as this team has been, theyre no where near that), but Im not sure if that is how its worked out in years past or not.


Also, If the FO really expected some massive gain in attendance I think they were probably kidding themselves. Cincinnati is not a baseball town despite what a lot of reds fans like to say. In my small sample size with individuals I know in the critical 18-35 age demographic its just not that high on the list of things they're interested in. And its not surprising given overall how terrible the Reds product was for the majority of those individuals lives.

I think the attendance spike this year is still a positive sign for the future years, and when looking at attendance for the past 40 years this shouldnt come as some major surprise to anyone. The most similar comparison I could find was the 1971 reds season. From 1941 to 1969 the reds won 1 division title in 1961. In 1970 the reds won their division and had the NL MVP in Johnny Bench (and even advanced further than the 2010 reds making the world series before falling). The 1971 reds had a poor season finishing 79-83, pretty similar to this 2011 team. That 1971 team drew a whopping 1,501,112 people and averaged less than 19,000 a game. This Reds team this year has already outdrawn them for the whole year. 1970 was also the first year of Riverfront stadium, so adding in a still relatively new ballpark for the 1971 season makes it even worse how bad attendance was for 71. If the FO is that unhappy with attendance, they need to open their eyes to the realities of attendance in the Cincinnati market and realize that the attendance ceiling for this city is no where near averaging 40,000 people a night. The 76 reds didnt even draw 35,000 a night. And yes I know, different era and the argument that attendance totals "should not" stay the same, but when you factor in that almost every game is now on television and peoples entertainment options for disposable income have multiplied by an exponential number since the 1970s I think its a wash at best.

Heres a look back at the Reds historical attendance numbers.




yearly attendance totals rounded. Just took exact average of rounded #
*= divsion winner
** WS champs

*1970 1.8 mill 22,222 pergame
1971 1.5 mill ~18,518
*1972 1.6 mill 19,754
*1973 2.0 mill 24,691
1974 2.2 mill 27,160
**1975 2.3 mill 28,395
**1976 2.6 mill 32,098
1977 2.5 mill 30,864
1978 2.5 mill 30,864
*1979 2.3 mill 28,395
1980 2.0 mill 24,691
1981 STRIKE SHORTENDED
1982 1.3 mill 16,049
1983 1.2 mill 14,814
1984 1.3 mill 16,049
1985 1.8 mill 22,222
1986 1.7 mill 20,987
1987 2.2 mill 27,160
1988 2.1 mill 25,925
1989 2.0 mill 24,691
**1990 2.4 mill 29,629
1991 2.4 mill 29,629
1992 2.3 mill 28,395
1993 2.5 mill 30,864
1994 STRIKE did not finish season/world series
**1995 STRIKE shortened, won division
1996 1.9 mill 23,456
1997 1.8 mill 22,222
1998 1.8 mill 22,222
1999 2.0 mill 24,691
2000 2.6 mill 32,098
2001 1.9 mill 23,456
2002 1.9 mill 23,456
2003 2.4 mill 29,629
2004 2.3 mill 28,395
2005 1.9 mill 23,456
2006 2.1 mill 25,925
2007 2.1 mill 25,925
2008 2.1 mill 25,925
2009 1.7 mill 20,987
*2010 2.1 mill 25,925
2011 1,746,557 27,723 av in 63 home games. On pace for 2.25 mill

BluegrassRedleg
08-14-2011, 07:17 AM
Attendance is BS when it comes to payroll unless you're at Florida Marlins awful levels. These people have money to burn. It's just a matter of how bad they want to field a winner on an annual basis.

Vottomatic
08-14-2011, 11:17 AM
(sarcasm ahead), yeah, sure.........it's not like the wettest rainiest Spring ever had nothing to do with it.

If this is true, Reds ownership doesn't get it.

I think they thought all they had to do was sign these guys to extensions to show a commitment to winning. For me, filling the glaring holes this past offseason to try to improve some more would have shown me more.

Ownership/management stood pat and thought they'd be alright. Most fans on Redszone seem to know more because the general offseason consensus was that LF, cleanup hitter, improved starting pitching, possible leadoff hitter that doesn't K so much, and SS all needed addressed, and the Reds had plenty to deal.

Asleep at the wheel but blaming the fans. That'll go over well.

Hillsdale87
08-14-2011, 11:23 AM
Attendance is horrible because they didn't do anything this past off season. If the FO would have made a significant upgrade to LF, SS, or a true #1 starter the Reds would be in the running for the playoffs this season and attendance would be great. This owner and FO don't seem to get it. After a central division championship they should have spent some money and keep this team competitive and they fans would have shown up in bunches. They just don't get it.

The Reds front office invested $150MM in the team in the offseason. How is that not spending money? They didn't go out and get anybody else, but the market in the offseason was heavily inflated, and there were no good options to sign. Aren't you glad the Reds weren't able to sign Jason Bartlett like they were trying to? And regrading LF, that position has been league average this season. SS has been disappointing, but nobody could have predicted that Janish would be historically bad and Renteria wouldn't start hitting until late July. And they invested in a #1 in the offseason. Cueto has been a top 5 pitcher in the majors this year

webbbj
08-14-2011, 12:57 PM
i mean i would never expect the reds to be big spenders in FA and dont think they should as it would handicap their team to just continue adding retreads. But they should look into making trades to get the players they need.

Alonso needs to be playing 3b everyday next year or be traded for someone who can.

A manager change, Chapman in the rotation, and an answer at SS until Cozart is ready would be nice feasible moves.

Roush's socks
08-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Adding payroll by signing FA's is not the answer. The Reds just need to figure out how to use the pieces they have, while making a few tweeks along the way. The Reds attendance is a factor and fans need to realize that they can't spend the money that teams with much higher attendance/TV revenues can spend.

Krawhitham
08-14-2011, 02:39 PM
Reds historical attendance numbers does not mean jack, because payrolls are at an alltime high. In the past attendance use to cover the team's payroll. That is clearly not the case since around 1995 - 2000

this season average is 27,997
average ticket price is $19 (from Forbes)
81 home games

27,997 X 81 = 2,267,757

2,267,757 X $19 = $43,087,383

Here is the break down of Reds attendance (from baseball almanac) vs MLB average payroll (From AP's single player average * 25)


YEAR REDS MLB PAYROLL
1970 22266 $732,575.00
1971 18532 $788,575.00
1972 20928 $852,300.00
1973 24909 $914,150.00
1974 26556 $1,020,975.00
1975 28588 $1,116,900.00
1976 32466 $1,287,525.00
1977 31107 $1,901,650.00
1978 31460 $2,496,900.00
1979 29279 $2,838,950.00
1980 24815 $3,593,900.00
1981 20254 $4,641,275.00
1982 16377 $6,037,425.00
1983 14697 $7,229,850.00
1984 15752 $8,235,200.00
1985 22650 $9,278,925.00
1986 20894 $10,313,000.00
1987 26978 $10,311,350.00
1988 25746 $10,968,225.00
1989 24436 $12,431,350.00
1990 29640 $14,938,425.00
1991 29289 $21,287,300.00
1992 28592 $25,716,675.00
1993 30287 $26,902,225.00
1994 33003 $29,206,575.00
1995 25523 $27,769,150.00
1996 22981 $27,999,525.00
1997 22047 $33,415,225.00
1998 22144 $34,970,775.00
1999 25292 $40,279,150.00
2000 31624 $47,390,750.00
2001 23794 $53,472,400.00
2002 22913 $57,391,225.00
2003 29077 $59,304,725.00
2004 28237 $57,838,375.00
2005 23989 $61,914,725.00
2006 26351 $67,482,300.00
2007 25388 $70,500,000.00
2008 25415 $78,750,000.00
2009 21579 $81,005,150.00
2010 25925 $82,445,700.00
2011 27997 $82,634,825.00


The Reds are always in the middle of the pack and close to the MLB average, in 2011 the payroll is $80,826,667 LINK (http://www.sportscity.com/MLB/Cincinnati-Reds-Salaries)

So Reds attendance only covers 53% of this years payroll

ervinsm84
08-14-2011, 04:29 PM
I clearly do not understand why historical attendance figures mean nothing when trying to figure out how many fans are likely to come to a game.

Vottomatic
08-14-2011, 06:15 PM
I still think people are forgetting we're in one of the worst economies of the last 80 to 100 years. Surely that has impacted attendance.

lidspinner
08-15-2011, 08:40 AM
I debated posting this because of so many people will call BS and say its not true, but here goes anyhow.....in 2009 I sat down in a little dive BBQ joint in southern Ohio....I looked over and who was sitting there? Jim Bowden, leatherpants himself was ordering a beef brisket and mac n cheese so I allowed him to eat then I quietly said hello and wished him good luck in his future career choices.....he sat down next to me and my kids and it ended up being an hour long conversation about Baseball, JB was all about talking his profession......I felt bad that I was talking shop but he insisted that it did not bother him and he enjoyed every minute of it.....

without going into every last detail, I asked him about attendance and payroll and how much it truly effected what they spend.....while it does effect what Bob allows Walt spend, it is a small chunk compared the puzzle.....Jimbo made it known that the FO knows you must put a winning team out there for at least 2 years in a row, preferrably 3-4 years in a row before you will expect big spikes in fans showing up.....He said they have a formula they use to plug into a 5 year plan, and if they think they will compete for the next 5 years then spending now might not pay off for 5 years, but if they truly think that it will pay off then they will make the move.....

basically, JB noted that even the smallest market teams have the ability to spend 100 million for 2-3 years in a row and if it dont pan out then they can go back to the 50-70 mill range and it really not effect their long term plans...not sure if any of this makes sense to you all but it helped me understand the ins and outs of baseball....

FireDusty
08-15-2011, 09:41 AM
Hire a manager that is a better fit for where the organization is, and you'll see a huge upswing in ticket sales for 2 reasons:

#1: Reds fans are smart. They will actually pay to come see the kids play.
#2: The Reds will win more with a better manager.

Very simple really. Dusty has cost this club so much from so many standpoints.

Fon Duc Tow
08-15-2011, 11:20 AM
posted tonight on mlbtraderumors:

The Reds have not seen a significant spike in attendance coming off last season's division title and will likely be relatively inactive this offseason.

They cant be serious to think because of their poor play and 10 games OUT, thats going to entice fans to buy tickets??? that's such a SLAP in the face of Reds fans.. WINNING last years division has seen attendance grow.. 12 sellouts before they started failing at staying in the race doesnt mean anything??

What a joke.. Please sell the team to Mark Cuban, BOB!!!!

What a coincidence... I haven't seen a significant spike in team wins so I will likely remain inactive with my wallet.

Crumbley
08-15-2011, 02:25 PM
My issue with Castellini is his spending doesn't back up his rhetoric. He has George Steinbrenner ambition on a George Costanza budget.

Vottomatic
08-15-2011, 04:48 PM
I debated posting this because of so many people will call BS and say its not true, but here goes anyhow.....in 2009 I sat down in a little dive BBQ joint in southern Ohio....I looked over and who was sitting there? Jim Bowden, leatherpants himself was ordering a beef brisket and mac n cheese so I allowed him to eat then I quietly said hello and wished him good luck in his future career choices.....he sat down next to me and my kids and it ended up being an hour long conversation about Baseball, JB was all about talking his profession......I felt bad that I was talking shop but he insisted that it did not bother him and he enjoyed every minute of it.....

without going into every last detail, I asked him about attendance and payroll and how much it truly effected what they spend.....while it does effect what Bob allows Walt spend, it is a small chunk compared the puzzle.....Jimbo made it known that the FO knows you must put a winning team out there for at least 2 years in a row, preferrably 3-4 years in a row before you will expect big spikes in fans showing up.....He said they have a formula they use to plug into a 5 year plan, and if they think they will compete for the next 5 years then spending now might not pay off for 5 years, but if they truly think that it will pay off then they will make the move.....

basically, JB noted that even the smallest market teams have the ability to spend 100 million for 2-3 years in a row and if it dont pan out then they can go back to the 50-70 mill range and it really not effect their long term plans...not sure if any of this makes sense to you all but it helped me understand the ins and outs of baseball....

I always heard him called Leatherpants.

Then one night I was out at the movies with my kids, up by Kings Island, and sure enough I look over and it's Jim Bowden with some hot looking chick.

And wouldn't you know it..........he had his leatherpants on.

It was hard to keep a straight face.

Vottomatic
08-15-2011, 04:49 PM
My issue with Castellini is his spending doesn't back up his rhetoric. He has George Steinbrenner ambition on a George Costanza budget.

Good one.

You might even say he has George Steinbrenner amibition on a Curious George budget.

texasdave
08-15-2011, 04:52 PM
Attendance is horrible because they didn't do anything this past off season. If the FO would have made a significant upgrade to LF, SS, or a true #1 starter the Reds would be in the running for the playoffs this season and attendance would be great. This owner and FO don't seem to get it. After a central division championship they should have spent some money and keep this team competitive and they fans would have shown up in bunches. They just don't get it.

Exactly.

lidspinner
08-16-2011, 07:23 AM
If ever there were a person in this world who does not look like they belong in leather pants, it's JimBo... But he really did come off as a nice guy who had no issue talking shop with me on his time off and did it on HIS time.....I am a fan of his for that one day only, but I will never want him back in this organization.

Red Raindog
08-16-2011, 08:18 AM
Not sure where you came up with that, but the Reds played at pittsburgh on july 18. July 17th was a sunday afternoon home game that drew 24,841.

Also, saying the front office "spent 124 million in the offseason" is a bit deceptive. They're not paying 124 million this year. Thats including future years salaries bc guys like bruce and votto got extensions . The payroll for 2011 is 75,947,134 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team.


As far as why attendence has increased throughout the season, Id imagine a lot of that has to do with the the first part of the season being played in march/april/may with kids in school and weather not as nice. Intuitively I think June-Aug should always have higher attendance barring the team being one of the worst in baseball (as frustrating as this team has been, theyre no where near that), but Im not sure if that is how its worked out in years past or not.


Also, If the FO really expected some massive gain in attendance I think they were probably kidding themselves. Cincinnati is not a baseball town despite what a lot of reds fans like to say. In my small sample size with individuals I know in the critical 18-35 age demographic its just not that high on the list of things they're interested in. And its not surprising given overall how terrible the Reds product was for the majority of those individuals lives.

I think the attendance spike this year is still a positive sign for the future years, and when looking at attendance for the past 40 years this shouldnt come as some major surprise to anyone. The most similar comparison I could find was the 1971 reds season. From 1941 to 1969 the reds won 1 division title in 1961. In 1970 the reds won their division and had the NL MVP in Johnny Bench (and even advanced further than the 2010 reds making the world series before falling). The 1971 reds had a poor season finishing 79-83, pretty similar to this 2011 team. That 1971 team drew a whopping 1,501,112 people and averaged less than 19,000 a game. This Reds team this year has already outdrawn them for the whole year. 1970 was also the first year of Riverfront stadium, so adding in a still relatively new ballpark for the 1971 season makes it even worse how bad attendance was for 71. If the FO is that unhappy with attendance, they need to open their eyes to the realities of attendance in the Cincinnati market and realize that the attendance ceiling for this city is no where near averaging 40,000 people a night. The 76 reds didnt even draw 35,000 a night. And yes I know, different era and the argument that attendance totals "should not" stay the same, but when you factor in that almost every game is now on television and peoples entertainment options for disposable income have multiplied by an exponential number since the 1970s I think its a wash at best.

Heres a look back at the Reds historical attendance numbers.




yearly attendance totals rounded. Just took exact average of rounded #
*= divsion winner
** WS champs

*1970 1.8 mill 22,222 pergame
1971 1.5 mill ~18,518
*1972 1.6 mill 19,754
*1973 2.0 mill 24,691
1974 2.2 mill 27,160
**1975 2.3 mill 28,395
**1976 2.6 mill 32,098
1977 2.5 mill 30,864
1978 2.5 mill 30,864
*1979 2.3 mill 28,395
1980 2.0 mill 24,691
1981 STRIKE SHORTENDED
1982 1.3 mill 16,049
1983 1.2 mill 14,814
1984 1.3 mill 16,049
1985 1.8 mill 22,222
1986 1.7 mill 20,987
1987 2.2 mill 27,160
1988 2.1 mill 25,925
1989 2.0 mill 24,691
**1990 2.4 mill 29,629
1991 2.4 mill 29,629
1992 2.3 mill 28,395
1993 2.5 mill 30,864
1994 STRIKE did not finish season/world series
**1995 STRIKE shortened, won division
1996 1.9 mill 23,456
1997 1.8 mill 22,222
1998 1.8 mill 22,222
1999 2.0 mill 24,691
2000 2.6 mill 32,098
2001 1.9 mill 23,456
2002 1.9 mill 23,456
2003 2.4 mill 29,629
2004 2.3 mill 28,395
2005 1.9 mill 23,456
2006 2.1 mill 25,925
2007 2.1 mill 25,925
2008 2.1 mill 25,925
2009 1.7 mill 20,987
*2010 2.1 mill 25,925
2011 1,746,557 27,723 av in 63 home games. On pace for 2.25 mill

Nicely stated!

Vottomatic
08-16-2011, 11:53 AM
I still say the extremely wet Spring, including into June, and the poor economy have alot to do with attendance not being better.

nux fan
08-16-2011, 12:53 PM
the attendance stinks because the team stinks
the manager is inept
the general manager is senile , he thinks acquiring heredia is a key off season move

texasdave
08-16-2011, 01:31 PM
They haven't done anything for the past how many winters? Why expect this one to be any different. When you are a small-market club and your window is open a bit you need to overpay to open that window completely. Because eventually the salary structure of your team is going to close that window on you whether you like it or not. You can't afford to be wasting seasons. I was caught up in the euphoria of 2010 as much as anyone but I recall a lot of discussion immediately after the season that this team still wasn't on the same level as top-tier clubs. The Reds had feasted on bottom feeders. This team did nothing to close that gap over the winter. Will they this off-season? Probably not.
What good does it do to have talent at AAA if it is mostly blocked by people on the big club? Seems like a waste to me.
How many open positions will there be in 2012? If you think the makeup of the club will be 13 position players and 12 pitchers it will probably look something like this.

1) Votto
2) Phillips
3) Rolen
4) Cozart
5) Heisey
6) Stubbs
7) Bruce
8) Hanigan
9) Cairo
10) Janish or Renteria (One will be back more than likely.)
11) Sappelt
12) Mesoraco

1) Cueto
2) Leake
3) Arroyo
4) Willis
5) Bailey
6) Masset
7) Bray
8) Ondrusek
9) Arredondo
10) LeCure
11) Chapman

That looks like room for one position player and one pitcher. Everyone else back to AAA. Essentially the same ballclub because I don't foresee management spending any money to fill holes. And I don't foresee Walt "I never overpay" Jocketty making any big moves.

So in the spring of 2012 when Reds marketing sings, "Meet the new Reds; same as the old Reds!".
The fans will refrain, "We won't get fooled again!"

Red Raindog
08-16-2011, 02:53 PM
They haven't done anything for the past how many winters? Why expect this one to be any different. When you are a small-market club and your window is open a bit you need to overpay to open that window completely. Because eventually the salary structure of your team is going to close that window on you whether you like it or not. You can't afford to be wasting seasons. I was caught up in the euphoria of 2010 as much as anyone but I recall a lot of discussion immediately after the season that this team still wasn't on the same level as top-tier clubs. The Reds had feasted on bottom feeders. This team did nothing to close that gap over the winter. Will they this off-season? Probably not.
What good does it do to have talent at AAA if it is mostly blocked by people on the big club? Seems like a waste to me.
How many open positions will there be in 2012? If you think the makeup of the club will be 13 position players and 12 pitchers it will probably look something like this.

1) Votto
2) Phillips
3) Rolen
4) Cozart
5) Heisey
6) Stubbs
7) Bruce
8) Hanigan
9) Cairo
10) Janish or Renteria (One will be back more than likely.)
11) Sappelt
12) Mesoraco

1) Cueto
2) Leake
3) Arroyo
4) Willis
5) Bailey
6) Masset
7) Bray
8) Ondrusek
9) Arredondo
10) LeCure
11) Chapman

That looks like room for one position player and one pitcher. Everyone else back to AAA. Essentially the same ballclub because I don't foresee management spending any money to fill holes. And I don't foresee Walt "I never overpay" Jocketty making any big moves.

So in the spring of 2012 when Reds marketing sings, "Meet the new Reds; same as the old Reds!".
The fans will refrain, "We won't get fooled again!"

I think Willis is a free agent at the end of this year -- I won't mind if he is resigned but someone else may outbid the Reds for him.

Vottomatic
08-16-2011, 03:35 PM
the attendance stinks because the team stinks
the manager is inept
the general manager is senile , he thinks acquiring heredia is a key off season move

Ouch. Sounds painful. Do they give you penicillin for heredia?

nux fan
08-16-2011, 04:16 PM
yes heredia is a transmitted affliction resembling chylmidia, once afflicted with heredia, a person can not hit, field or throw unless they are in "scoring" position, in which case they acquire the malady.

BRM13
08-16-2011, 10:00 PM
I debated posting this because of so many people will call BS and say its not true, but here goes anyhow.....in 2009 I sat down in a little dive BBQ joint in southern Ohio....I looked over and who was sitting there? Jim Bowden, leatherpants himself was ordering a beef brisket and mac n cheese so I allowed him to eat then I quietly said hello and wished him good luck in his future career choices.....he sat down next to me and my kids and it ended up being an hour long conversation about Baseball, JB was all about talking his profession......I felt bad that I was talking shop but he insisted that it did not bother him and he enjoyed every minute of it.....

without going into every last detail, I asked him about attendance and payroll and how much it truly effected what they spend.....while it does effect what Bob allows Walt spend, it is a small chunk compared the puzzle.....Jimbo made it known that the FO knows you must put a winning team out there for at least 2 years in a row, preferrably 3-4 years in a row before you will expect big spikes in fans showing up.....He said they have a formula they use to plug into a 5 year plan, and if they think they will compete for the next 5 years then spending now might not pay off for 5 years, but if they truly think that it will pay off then they will make the move.....

basically, JB noted that even the smallest market teams have the ability to spend 100 million for 2-3 years in a row and if it dont pan out then they can go back to the 50-70 mill range and it really not effect their long term plans...not sure if any of this makes sense to you all but it helped me understand the ins and outs of baseball....

Five years seems like an exaggeration. I hope they don't really think it takes 5 years of winning to get a payoff from their investment. That mindset would lead to a very conservative approach. Only huge improvements that would last for years would justify making serious expenditures. Smaller incremental things that might improve you a lot for a year or two would not make the cut.

The effect of winning on attendance is really a two year thing. This year and last year matter a lot. After that the effect starts to wear off. Of course, being in a close race, having a new stadium, being in a big city, and ticket prices matter, too.

Over the longer term, championships matter quite a bit. That is part of why St. Louis has such a large fan base; they have a large number of eras of very high level performance.

markymark69
08-16-2011, 10:21 PM
Attendance is horrible because they didn't do anything this past off season. If the FO would have made a significant upgrade to LF, SS, or a true #1 starter the Reds would be in the running for the playoffs this season and attendance would be great. This owner and FO don't seem to get it. After a central division championship they should have spent some money and keep this team competitive and they fans would have shown up in bunches. They just don't get it.

I will say this in their defense. The claim is that they didn't spend money this past off-season - not true. They spent 100 plus million to lock up Bruce and Cueto long term, reward Joey Votto, not to mention the raises the other players received because of contracts (Phillips, Arroyo, Cordero). It didn't work so well this year - but if you spent 100 plus million dollars and then are accused of not spending - I'm sure you would be a little miffed by that.

I can't tell people how to spend their money - and attendance is a critical piece to the Reds budget - we as fans need to remember that. Of course we could back to the Carl Lindner days.

texasdave
08-16-2011, 10:26 PM
I will say this in their defense. The claim is that they didn't spend money this past off-season - not true. They spent 100 plus million to lock up Bruce and Cueto long term, reward Joey Votto, not to mention the raises the other players received because of contracts (Phillips, Arroyo, Cordero). It didn't work so well this year - but if you spent 100 plus million dollars and then are accused of not spending - I'm sure you would be a little miffed by that.

I can't tell people how to spend their money - and attendance is a critical piece to the Reds budget - we as fans need to remember that. Of course we could back to the Carl Lindner days.

This is patently false. They did not spend 100 plus million in the over the winter. That is simply and totally untrue.

takealeake
08-17-2011, 12:08 AM
But hey, by all means waste a 3 year $36 mil contract of a freaking pitcher you had an OPTION ON that ended up as one of the worst in the NL this year. Yeah, no need to wait it out to see if the guy who constantly has horrible first halves of the season wouldn't eventually not put it all together or anything. This front office is full of fools. Why don't you just sell the team Castelinni, you're not doing crap with it.

R_Webb18
08-17-2011, 12:33 AM
if we do nothing we might aswell say goodjob to whoever does b/c some1 will. we will be watching some1 else win also.

ukwazoo
08-19-2011, 11:53 PM
Reds historical attendance numbers does not mean jack, because payrolls are at an alltime high. In the past attendance use to cover the team's payroll. That is clearly not the case since around 1995 - 2000

this season average is 27,997
average ticket price is $19 (from Forbes)
81 home games

27,997 X 81 = 2,267,757

2,267,757 X $19 = $43,087,383

Here is the break down of Reds attendance (from baseball almanac) vs MLB average payroll (From AP's single player average * 25)


YEAR REDS MLB PAYROLL
1970 22266 $732,575.00
1971 18532 $788,575.00
1972 20928 $852,300.00
1973 24909 $914,150.00
1974 26556 $1,020,975.00
1975 28588 $1,116,900.00
1976 32466 $1,287,525.00
1977 31107 $1,901,650.00
1978 31460 $2,496,900.00
1979 29279 $2,838,950.00
1980 24815 $3,593,900.00
1981 20254 $4,641,275.00
1982 16377 $6,037,425.00
1983 14697 $7,229,850.00
1984 15752 $8,235,200.00
1985 22650 $9,278,925.00
1986 20894 $10,313,000.00
1987 26978 $10,311,350.00
1988 25746 $10,968,225.00
1989 24436 $12,431,350.00
1990 29640 $14,938,425.00
1991 29289 $21,287,300.00
1992 28592 $25,716,675.00
1993 30287 $26,902,225.00
1994 33003 $29,206,575.00
1995 25523 $27,769,150.00
1996 22981 $27,999,525.00
1997 22047 $33,415,225.00
1998 22144 $34,970,775.00
1999 25292 $40,279,150.00
2000 31624 $47,390,750.00
2001 23794 $53,472,400.00
2002 22913 $57,391,225.00
2003 29077 $59,304,725.00
2004 28237 $57,838,375.00
2005 23989 $61,914,725.00
2006 26351 $67,482,300.00
2007 25388 $70,500,000.00
2008 25415 $78,750,000.00
2009 21579 $81,005,150.00
2010 25925 $82,445,700.00
2011 27997 $82,634,825.00


The Reds are always in the middle of the pack and close to the MLB average, in 2011 the payroll is $80,826,667 LINK (http://www.sportscity.com/MLB/Cincinnati-Reds-Salaries)

So Reds attendance only covers 53% of this years payroll

Now count up those 2.25 million in attendance this year that spend at least $20 at the concession stand/souvenir store. This franchise makes tons of money.

At least they're keeping their good players now. Next step - improve the team.

jwmann2
08-20-2011, 12:48 AM
Attendance is BS when it comes to payroll unless you're at Florida Marlins awful levels. These people have money to burn. It's just a matter of how bad they want to field a winner on an annual basis.

Somewhat true. It's a simple equation folks. You go to games, the team has more to spend. Look at the attendance of the Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox. And then look at their payroll....Gotta pay to play!

ervinsm84
08-20-2011, 09:56 AM
Somewhat true. It's a simple equation folks. You go to games, the team has more to spend. Look at the attendance of the Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox. And then look at their payroll....Gotta pay to play!

attendance for yankees games has little to do with why they can spend a ton. The YES network is the real reason

izzy's dad
08-20-2011, 10:31 AM
For me it is simple. I will not spend my discretionary income on a poor product. Doesn't matter to me if it is baseball games or laundry detergent. I have a budget, and I won't make room for something that is not going to be worth my while. Let me qualify this by saying that I have been to several games this year, paid 5 dollars for a hot dog and 6 dollars for a beer, yada yada. The Reds have hundreds if not thousands of my hard earned United States dollars. But I can't continue to spend like this if the product (team) does not improve. If this organization wants my money then they need to invest in the team. Just like Tide, Downy, etc. must invest in marketing, improving the product they ship, research and development, and compete for my money, so do the Reds. Why should I spend money in hopes that the Reds will improve the team and win. Why can't they field the best team that they can, and when they are a product that I want to purchase I will write checks. It isn't difficult, it's just being a good steward of my family's money.