PDA

View Full Version : Who has a brighter future?



WVRed
10-21-2011, 02:46 PM
This is kind of a spillover topic from the Tavern, but it does apply to the Reds.

The Reds have a reigning MVP in Joey Votto, a potential star in Jay Bruce, an exciting player in Phillips, and solid young pitching in Cueto and Chapman. If the talent meshes together, they could be in contention in the NL Central for quite some time, especially if Pujols and Fielder leave their teams.

The Bengals have a young rookie QB who is an absolute gamer, a wide receiver who is absolutely incredible and doesn't have the primadonna antics of the past, and a defense that has been extremely solid this season.

Whos your take?

RANDY IN INDY
10-21-2011, 04:44 PM
The Reds. They don't have Mike Brown running the show.

reds1869
10-21-2011, 05:00 PM
I think both have bright futures but I'll give the nod to Castellini/Jocketty over Brown/Blackburn eight days per week.

marcshoe
10-21-2011, 06:39 PM
This one's easy. The Bengals could win the next nine Super Bowls, but they would still be a football team. Simply by virtue of playing baseball, the Reds have a brighter future.

RedsManRick
10-21-2011, 07:57 PM
The Reds. They don't have Mike Brown running the show.

This. I actually like the Bengals from a talent standpoint a bit more, but I have absolutely zero faith in the Bengals management.

Dan
10-22-2011, 05:02 PM
The Reds. They don't have Mike Brown running the show.

This was exactly my thought. My vote might change (to equally bright) if Mike Brown dropped dead tomorrow.

Mario-Rijo
10-23-2011, 10:26 AM
Bengals, hands down.

Bengals - Better F.O., better coaching, willing to spend money, better top to bottom talent base.

Reds - More liked/respected, have the better premium players.

Better competition is a push IMO.

1990REDS
10-23-2011, 10:42 AM
I went with the Bengals for the simple fact that the NFL provides a more level playing field for its teams with a salary cap.

Eric_the_Red
10-23-2011, 11:32 AM
Bengals, hands down.

Bengals - Better F.O., better coaching, willing to spend money, better top to bottom talent base.

Reds - More liked/respected, have the better premium players.

Better competition is a push IMO.

Say what now?

Scrap Irony
10-23-2011, 11:46 AM
Bengals, hands down.

Bengals - Better F.O., better coaching, willing to spend money, better top to bottom talent base.

Reds - More liked/respected, have the better premium players.

Better competition is a push IMO.

Wow.

The Reds, hands down.


The Bengals have no one near the top of their league. Cincinnati has Votto.

The Bengals have five solid prospects that are below the peak seasons in their top 25 players, for a 20% rate. The Reds have six for their top ten.

The Reds have answers at every position that could rate as positive within the next two years.

The Bengals can count on half of their team to be average or better.

The Bengals have Mike Brown. Who sucks. And has historically sucked. So much so that he's a league-wide joke.

Walt Jocketty has won four Executives of the Year Awards in his career, one two years ago. He's considered among the top GMs in baseball.

cincrazy
10-23-2011, 01:04 PM
I voted the Bengals. Not because I feel particularly awful about the Reds, but because I think the Bengals' core will be together longer, and I feel a lot better about gauging the future of a few NFL players than I do a few young MLB players.

Then again, Mike Brown. Duly noted.

cincrazy
10-23-2011, 01:05 PM
Wow.

The Reds, hands down.


The Bengals have no one near the top of their league. Cincinnati has Votto.

The Bengals have five solid prospects that are below the peak seasons in their top 25 players, for a 20% rate. The Reds have six for their top ten.

The Reds have answers at every position that could rate as positive within the next two years.

The Bengals can count on half of their team to be average or better.

The Bengals have Mike Brown. Who sucks. And has historically sucked. So much so that he's a league-wide joke.

Walt Jocketty has won four Executives of the Year Awards in his career, one two years ago. He's considered among the top GMs in baseball.

AJ Green my friend.

And Walt Jocketty WAS among the top GMs in baseball. Can we honestly say that anymore?

Vottomatic
10-24-2011, 04:16 PM
Coming off the 2011 letdown season, I'm going with the Bengals.

I don't like Mike Brown, and think he does a poor job.

But the Bengals, with Dalton, Green, Gresham, and a solid defense, along with these additional #1 picks have the chance to rebuild quickly and be back in it.

But more than anything, the Reds will always be playing in a financially lopsided professional sport, whereas, the Bengals play in the sport that has more financial parity making it easier to rebuild quickly and contend.

MikeThierry
10-24-2011, 08:49 PM
How do you define success in the poll? Is it defined by championships or playoff runs? I think I would give a nod towards the Reds on the Championship part of it but I think the Bengals can have a more sustained playoff run than the Reds, if that makes any sense.

Mario-Rijo
10-25-2011, 11:04 PM
Say what now?

We will no doubt disagree, clearly. But I think as much as people give crap to the Bengals they draft better than they are given credit for and they have been near the cap limit for quite some time (previous to this season). The Reds don't spend anywhere near their competition and their F.O. is overrated due to what I believe is undeserved recognition. Walt is a respectable GM and surrounded by the right people a good one but not any great shakes IMO and especially as a Red where he doesn't have the financial means to have a shot.

The Bengals are not flawless by any stretch and the Reds certainly have some things going for them but I think the Bengals are a bit better overall. In the end it's about what one does with what they have and the Bengals have made the most of what they have moreso than the Reds. And I am predicting going forward the Reds will find a way to ruin what they currently have and the Bengals building on what they have.

Mario-Rijo
10-25-2011, 11:08 PM
Wow.

The Reds, hands down.


The Bengals have no one near the top of their league. Cincinnati has Votto.

The Bengals have five solid prospects that are below the peak seasons in their top 25 players, for a 20% rate. The Reds have six for their top ten.

The Reds have answers at every position that could rate as positive within the next two years.

The Bengals can count on half of their team to be average or better.

The Bengals have Mike Brown. Who sucks. And has historically sucked. So much so that he's a league-wide joke.

Walt Jocketty has won four Executives of the Year Awards in his career, one two years ago. He's considered among the top GMs in baseball.

I disagree with some of this but believe what you want. I say going forward the Bengals have more success than the Reds will. Money is always the bottom line. The Bengals can afford to compete and apparently the Reds cannot (or will not). Bummer IMO but true.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-26-2011, 12:43 AM
I voted for the Bengals. The NFL is set up to allow a team like the Bengals to realistically compete for the Super Bowl. As we know, it's unlikely the Reds can consistently compete for the World Series and the only way to win is capture that one-season lightning-in-a-bottle. And it's impossible for teams like the Reds to sustain those "lightning" seasons long. Look at the A's, Rockies, Indians, Marlins and other small-market teams. They've had their great seasons only to fall off the face of the earth shortly after.

Heck, the Reds can't even afford to keep the best player their system has produced in decades. Every Reds fan knows that Joey Votto is on borrowed time around here.

In the NFL, within the past decade, we have Super Bowl winners from Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Indianapolis and Green Bay. It would be laughable to suggest that we would see World Series winners from those or equivalent markets in the span of 10 years.