PDA

View Full Version : Would you...Votto for 7/$160MM?



Benihana
01-26-2012, 05:28 PM
It appears a baseline has been established for what it may take to re-sign Joey Votto. MLBTR independently speculated and the Dodgers, who are likely to be a bigtime player for Votto, reportedly offered Prince Fielder a similar deal: 7 years, $160MM.

No one knows exactly where the Reds payroll is headed, but it is reasonable to assume over the next few years it will hover somewhere between $85 and $100MM. Clearly that's a wide range, but it is the best anyone can speculate at this point. Given that, would you commit $23MM per year to Joey Votto for 7 more seasons after next year?

Please explain below.

Benihana
01-26-2012, 05:39 PM
For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

I would not extend him for 7 additional years (after 2013) for $160MM. IMO, that will destroy the Reds for the second half of the decade. Unless of course, the payroll were to somehow rise into nine-digit territory.

reds1869
01-26-2012, 05:43 PM
For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

Excellent post. You saved me a lot of typing because that is exactly how I would approach the matter.

Vottomatic
01-26-2012, 05:48 PM
For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

I would not extend him for 7 additional years (after 2013) for $160MM. IMO, that will destroy the Reds for the second half of the decade. Unless of course, the payroll were to somehow rise into nine-digit territory.

Well said. Me too.

lollipopcurve
01-26-2012, 06:09 PM
For me, with Alonso gone, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I'm not worried about payroll or Soto. Castellini/Jocketty will not offer a contract that forces them to strip the team down to a noncompetitive state, IMO. As far as Soto goes, if he starts to look like he can be a starting major league 1st baseman, he's trade bait. I just don't think he's in the same universe as Votto. It's important to show Votto that the organization wants to commit to him -- rumor had it that Pujols didn't like the time frame the Cards used to open negotiations with him. Reds need to err on the side of appearing too eager to get him signed, not on the side of appearing hesitant.

Benihana
01-26-2012, 06:10 PM
For me, with Alonso gone, the answer is an unequivocal yes. I'm not worried about payroll or Soto. Castellini/Jocketty will not offer a contract that forces them to strip the team down to a noncompetitive state, IMO. As far as Soto goes, if he starts to look like he can be a starting major league 1st baseman, he's trade bait. I just don't think he's in the same universe as Votto. It's important to show Votto that the organization wants to commit to him -- rumor had it that Pujols didn't like the time frame the Cards used to open negotiations with him. Reds need to err on the side of appearing too eager to get him signed, not on the side of appearing hesitant.

I don't think anyone believes Soto is in the same universe as Votto. But if he can be better than league average (ie OPS > .825) in the majors, it may not be worth committing $160MM for an extra .100-.150 points in OPS (someone can feel free to convert this to WAR).

$160MM is a lot of jack (as Stan Kroenke would say) to commit to for an organization like the Reds. I wouldn't rush into anything when you're talking about that kind of money, no matter what people's "feelings" are. Not to mention, opening the window of negotiations 18 months before FA (in this case) is hardly dragging feet.

Eric_the_Red
01-26-2012, 06:13 PM
I would love to see Votto remain a Red for his entire career, but not if the team payrol isn't increased. I remember the Larkin/Griffey years and how giving 25% of the team salary to one player can make it impossible for a small market team to compete.

If the Reds suddenly find themselves drawing 3 million fans a year, and the team is successful on the field, that may convince ownership to increase payroll to the point of being able to field a quality team around that contract. Short of that, I vote no.

Captain Hook
01-26-2012, 06:28 PM
Assuming payroll is 90 million then yes. Winning teams have been built with the money that would be left over from the potential Votto deal.

RedsManRick
01-26-2012, 06:45 PM
MVPs don't grow on trees. I'm not a fan of the idea of spending 25% of payroll on a guy. But if you're going to do it, Votto is that kind of guy. That said, upon further reflection, I would not go 7 years with a 30 year-old 1B. The odds of him breaking down at some point over that contract are too high and the cost to the Reds if that happened would be too great.

Benihana
01-26-2012, 07:03 PM
MVPs don't grow on trees. I'm not a fan of the idea of spending 25% of payroll on a guy. But if you're going to do it, Votto is that kind of guy. That said, upon further reflection, I would not go 7 years with a 30 year-old 1B. The odds of him breaking down at some point over that contract are too high and the cost to the Reds if that happened would be too great.

So does that mean you're in "my camp" of giving him the 7 year deal only if Soto regresses and the contract includes 2013? He turns 30 in September 2013.

The good news is unlike most players that get these kinds of deals, Votto is already a 1B- and a pretty good and fit one at that. In other words, he probably won't become a huge defensive liability at his current position over the course of his contract (unlike KGJ in CF, An.Jones in CF, Werth in CF, Carlos Lee in OF, A-Rod at SS, and possibly Fielder and Pujols at 1B).

_Sir_Charles_
01-26-2012, 07:09 PM
I'd love to re-sign him, but I wouldn't want to do such a lengthy contract. I'd go 5 years. 6 tops.

Mario-Rijo
01-26-2012, 07:24 PM
I give it to him. Joey is the epitome of an outstanding professional, his game is as good as they come and is based on an intelligent approach & sound fundamentals and not super athleticism. If you are for letting this guy go then clearly you have some faith that we can win without him, I don't. If you let him go then Matt Latos likely follows as well as every single excellent player the Reds are fortunate enough to find thereafter, where does this all end? Are we doomed to mediocrity forever? If we are to ever make a turnaround this is the guy you commit to and make a go of it while he's in Red. The Soto's of the world are nice but aren't likely to ever draw what a consistent winner will. The latter is something the Reds haven't given the fans a chance to back since the 70's.

dougdirt
01-26-2012, 07:29 PM
No. I simply wouldn't give out that kind of money to guys on the wrong side of their prime, even elite ones. If he wanted 3 years and $75M, I would do that. But as a team without a giant payroll, I can't commit that kind of years and money to someone who will be 38 at the end of the contract.

RedsManRick
01-26-2012, 08:12 PM
So does that mean you're in "my camp" of giving him the 7 year deal only if Soto regresses and the contract includes 2013? He turns 30 in September 2013.

The good news is unlike most players that get these kinds of deals, Votto is already a 1B- and a pretty good and fit one at that. In other words, he probably won't become a huge defensive liability at his current position over the course of his contract (unlike KGJ in CF, An.Jones in CF, Werth in CF, Carlos Lee in OF, A-Rod at SS, and possibly Fielder and Pujols at 1B).

For me, Soto isn't a factor. Awesome power and no patience is a ticket to AAAA land.

It's simply a function of opportunity cost. I'd rather have that $23MM to spend on other things in a more flexible way. If I could give Votto that deal tomorrow, I'd seriously consider it. But after 2013, I'd pass.

GADawg
01-26-2012, 08:33 PM
i'd do it even though my practical side(which never wins any internal argument) tells me it's probably not a good idea. I long for the days when star players stayed with their original organization so that's playing a major part in my answer even though Votto isn't even one of my favorite current Reds. Oh and I've followed the Reds since '73 and Votto may very well be the best all around hitter I've seen in a Cincy uni.

AtomicDumpling
01-26-2012, 08:50 PM
Which player will be worth $23 million per year in 2014 and beyond? We will have a much clearer idea of that in 2014 than we do now, right? So why decide now?

The Reds have Votto under contract for two more seasons, so I don't see the point in signing him to an extension now. Since he is performing at an MVP rate right now we would have to pay him an MVP salary even if he is not still playing at that level when the extension kicks in. We still have him for two more years, so we should wait until the end of the contract and see if he is still playing at an MVP level before committing to several more years of paying an MVP-level salary.

If the Reds extend him at that rate now then the Reds are agreeing to bear all the risk that he continues to produce like an MVP. If Votto chooses to play out his current contract then hit the free agent market then he is the one bearing the risk -- because he might not still be producing at an MVP rate when he hits free agency.

If the Reds sign him to an extension now then they deserve a discount for shouldering that risk, otherwise there is nothing to gain by extending him now. If you are going to pay the market rate for an MVP-caliber player then you might as well wait to see who is actually still playing at an MVP level at that moment before committing to paying out that much money.

If Votto decides to leave after the 2013 season then the Reds will still have all that money to spend on whomever they want that offseason. Maybe there will be a better option available when that time comes. It is not like they have to choose now.

RedlegJake
01-26-2012, 08:52 PM
Hard to answer things like this in a vacuum. If the money gets used to build around him, of course, I'd sign him. 7 years is a lot of money tied for a long time, though, you have to waver some before making that deal.

Eric_the_Red
01-26-2012, 08:52 PM
Jocketty was on with both Mo Egger and Lance this evening and while he said he wants to start discussion on a Votto extension, he did not sound optimistic at all. He said the Fielder deal really hurt them. Doesn't look good.

AmarilloRed
01-27-2012, 01:39 PM
I voted Other. I simply think there's too many factors in play to make that determination at this point. Will the budget be 85 million or 100 million?-I don't think you can assume it will be the same for the next 10 years. Wins-how many will the Reds have the next 2 years? I think Joey considers a extension if we make the playoffs either of the next 2 years, but he'll definitely leave if we don't.

Arbitration-do the Reds pay a lot in arbitration, or do they make out a lot better? What happens with Marshall and Madsen after 2012? Does Phillips get that extension or do we let him enter FA?I think we'll have a lot better chance to answer that question in 2013.

TRF
01-27-2012, 01:52 PM
For the record, I would wait until the ASB to see what Neftali Soto does this year in Louisville. If he continues to OPS over .900 and shows some ability to take a walk, I would not commit that kind of money to Votto. I might even consider shopping Votto next offseason if Soto looks great.

However if Soto is exposed in AAA, I would offer that deal to Joey V...beginning next season. In other words, give him a $4MM raise for next season and extend him six years beyond that at $23MM per- still an overall deal of 7 years/$160MM but it expires after 2019 (ie after Votto turns 36 rather than when he turns 37.) If he refuses, I'd try again in the offseason, and throughout the 2013 season. If he still resisted, and the Reds were out of the race, I'd trade him at the 2013 deadline for as much of a prospect bounty as we could receive.

I would not extend him for 7 additional years (after 2013) for $160MM. IMO, that will destroy the Reds for the second half of the decade. Unless of course, the payroll were to somehow rise into nine-digit territory.

Yup.

corkedbat
01-27-2012, 02:37 PM
Not without an annual payroll of at least $100M per season

Benihana
01-27-2012, 03:06 PM
I voted Other. I simply think there's too many factors in play to make that determination at this point. Will the budget be 85 million or 100 million?-I don't think you can assume it will be the same for the next 10 years. Wins-how many will the Reds have the next 2 years? I think Joey considers a extension if we make the playoffs either of the next 2 years, but he'll definitely leave if we don't.

Arbitration-do the Reds pay a lot in arbitration, or do they make out a lot better? What happens with Marshall and Madsen after 2012? Does Phillips get that extension or do we let him enter FA?I think we'll have a lot better chance to answer that question in 2013.

Huh?? :confused:

The premise of the question is, if you assume an average payroll ~$90MM for the next several years, would you sign Joey Votto to a 7 year deal for $160MM? Built into the premise is the fact that's what it would take, so your question about wins and what Joey would do is irrelevant. Also, the question is staged now, so you can decide what to do with Madson and Marshall after the season just as you would otherwise. If Joey V told you he'd sign a 7 year, $160MM deal tomorrow, would you do it if you're the Reds?

puca
01-27-2012, 03:15 PM
Even as good as Joey is, I don't think the Reds could fill out a competitive team around him for 68M per year. At least not without regularly pumping TOR arms from the farm.

Benihana
01-27-2012, 03:52 PM
Even as good as Joey is, I don't think the Reds could fill out a competitive team around him for 68M per year. At least not without regularly pumping TOR arms from the farm.

I think this point is key.

If Corcino, Stephenson, and Sulbaran end up being as good as Cueto, Latos and Leake, then maybe this could work.

But counting on all three of those guys to pan out like that is not a great bet.

Latos and Cueto will likely be way too expensive for the Reds to hang onto in this scenario past 2014, as Votto and Bruce alone will account for $35MM. If all goes well, Leake will probably cost another $8-$10MM at that point as well. Thus, as far as pitching goes, the Reds would be left with Chapman for a couple years and whatever the minor league system could provide. They could not afford to bring in a quality #1 or #2 arm via FA, and would have to trade the farm to get another arm like Latos (just like they did with Latos).

757690
01-27-2012, 04:17 PM
I'd do it easliy, but I doubt he would accept it. He'll get ten years from someone.

I really don't see him declining much as he gets older. Most of his value is as a hitter, and he's proven to be the type of player to be very driven, so I don't see him letting himself go physically.

Let's say this is his WAR over the length of the contract:

7
6
5
4
3
3
3

That would work out to around $140M at today's WAR dollar values.

More importantly, it would mean an MVP bat in the middle of the lineup until around 2016. That's a nice stretch to have.

In terms of affording it, if the Reds could afford to pay Cordero and Harang $25M in 2010 and make the playoffs, they can afford paying Votto that much and build a winner.

LegallyMinded
01-27-2012, 04:20 PM
Even as good as Joey is, I don't think the Reds could fill out a competitive team around him for 68M per year. At least not without regularly pumping TOR arms from the farm.

It's certainly possible to build a winning team with Votto + 68 million. The Rays and Diamondbacks in 2011 and the Rangers in 2010 all made the playoffs with total payrolls of less than 68 million dollars, so in one sense, trying to reach the playoffs with 68 million in addition to Votto would be easier than what some other teams have done.

Now, whether the Reds, in particular, are efficient (or lucky) enough to accumulate good, cheap players to complement Votto is another question entirely. Throwing around money on contracts like Arroyo's extension isn't really a good sign, but then, the Reds were one of the most efficient teams in terms of payroll/win in 2010. Overall, I guess it seems like signing Votto could end up going either way for the Reds, but I'd be willing to take a chance on it.

bucksfan2
01-27-2012, 04:35 PM
IMO you have to commit to who you are going to build around. I think the Bruce and Cueto contracts were smart contracts because those two are locked up cheap for a while. But I think the more pressing issue is they aren't game changers. They aren't the types of guys you can build a franchise around.

Can you assemble a team around $75 (assuming the Reds increase payroll with Votto to $100)? You may have to deal Latos, in 3 years. You will have to draft welll and find suitable replacements for players, but it is do able. And lets make no mistake, this team is built to contend right now but it has some needs. A guy like Soto may be best used as trade bait.

IMO the key is getting production out of your stars and making the proper moves.

Benihana
01-27-2012, 04:58 PM
In terms of affording it, if the Reds could afford to pay Cordero and Harang $25M in 2010 and make the playoffs, they can afford paying Votto that much and build a winner.

One thing people forget is what allowed the Reds to make the playoffs in 2010 (and will hopefully again in 2012) is a farm system that produced 10 major league starters at roughly the same time. This was a system that had been teeming with talent and in the works for several years leading up to it. Consider in 2009, the Reds had Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, Stewart, Leake, Wood and Alonso all in the fold and all either major league ready or on the cusp of being ready- all for the league minimum.

Thus, they were able to give some of them a year or two of seasoning on bad ballclubs, trade some of them for other parts (Stewart for Rolen; Alonso for Latos), and yet all of those guys turned into productive major leaguers.

At the present moment, I don't see the Reds having a farm system anywhere near what it was from 2008-2011, at least certainly not at the higher levels. While it could easily be replenished if we continue to stockpile and use draft picks wisely, it is difficult to bank on that happening all at the same time like the way it all came together in 2010- or at least refreshing the major league pipeline enough in time for 2015, when Latos, Cueto, and possibly Leake will be priced out of town, and Votto and Bruce will be swallowing up $35MM/year.

This is one of the reasons why it is difficult for me to consider committing that kind of money to Votto- it is more due to what happens 2015-2020 then what happens in the next couple years. It could easily look like the Reds with Griffey during the second half of the lost decade.

Not saying definitely no, but it does give me significant pause.

fearofpopvol1
01-27-2012, 07:06 PM
Jocketty was on with both Mo Egger and Lance this evening and while he said he wants to start discussion on a Votto extension, he did not sound optimistic at all. He said the Fielder deal really hurt them. Doesn't look good.

I believe this to be true as well. If Prince had gone for a lot less, like he should have, this question would be more intriguing.

However, I would give him 6 years at $140M if he'd take it.

buckeyenut
01-27-2012, 10:57 PM
One thing people forget is what allowed the Reds to make the playoffs in 2010 (and will hopefully again in 2012) is a farm system that produced 10 major league starters at roughly the same time. This was a system that had been teeming with talent and in the works for several years leading up to it. Consider in 2009, the Reds had Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, Stewart, Leake, Wood and Alonso all in the fold and all either major league ready or on the cusp of being ready- all for the league minimum.

Thus, they were able to give some of them a year or two of seasoning on bad ballclubs, trade some of them for other parts (Stewart for Rolen; Alonso for Latos), and yet all of those guys turned into productive major leaguers.

At the present moment, I don't see the Reds having a farm system anywhere near what it was from 2008-2011, at least certainly not at the higher levels. While it could easily be replenished if we continue to stockpile and use draft picks wisely, it is difficult to bank on that happening all at the same time like the way it all came together in 2010- or at least refreshing the major league pipeline enough in time for 2015, when Latos, Cueto, and possibly Leake will be priced out of town, and Votto and Bruce will be swallowing up $35MM/year.

This is one of the reasons why it is difficult for me to consider committing that kind of money to Votto- it is more due to what happens 2015-2020 then what happens in the next couple years. It could easily look like the Reds with Griffey during the second half of the lost decade.

Not saying definitely no, but it does give me significant pause.

I think I sign him, keep him for two years then look to deal him in 2015 if my window closes. Assuming no injury, it should still be doable. Of course, this also assumes that I understand what the CBA changes do for me and that I can manage the payroll as the team with the smallest market in baseball.

AtomicDumpling
01-27-2012, 11:04 PM
I think I sign him, keep him for two years then look to deal him in 2015 if my window closes. Assuming no injury, it should still be doable. Of course, this also assumes that I understand what the CBA changes do for me and that I can manage the payroll as the team with the smallest market in baseball.

I was with you until I got to the bolded part, then you lost me.

The Reds are not even close to being the smallest market in baseball. Yes, Cincinnati is the smallest city to have an MLB team, but the Reds' market is in the middle of the pack. The size of a team's market is not limited to the people in the city. Some big cities don't have many baseball fans. Some small cities have lots of baseball fans. Some team's fan bases don't extend much beyond the city limits. Other teams have millions of dedicated fans 100+ miles from their stadium, and the Reds are one of those.

smith288
01-28-2012, 03:41 PM
Too long of a contract.

757690
01-28-2012, 04:02 PM
One thing people forget is what allowed the Reds to make the playoffs in 2010 (and will hopefully again in 2012) is a farm system that produced 10 major league starters at roughly the same time. This was a system that had been teeming with talent and in the works for several years leading up to it. Consider in 2009, the Reds had Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, Votto, Bruce, Stubbs, Stewart, Leake, Wood and Alonso all in the fold and all either major league ready or on the cusp of being ready- all for the league minimum.

Thus, they were able to give some of them a year or two of seasoning on bad ballclubs, trade some of them for other parts (Stewart for Rolen; Alonso for Latos), and yet all of those guys turned into productive major leaguers.

At the present moment, I don't see the Reds having a farm system anywhere near what it was from 2008-2011, at least certainly not at the higher levels. While it could easily be replenished if we continue to stockpile and use draft picks wisely, it is difficult to bank on that happening all at the same time like the way it all came together in 2010- or at least refreshing the major league pipeline enough in time for 2015, when Latos, Cueto, and possibly Leake will be priced out of town, and Votto and Bruce will be swallowing up $35MM/year.

This is one of the reasons why it is difficult for me to consider committing that kind of money to Votto- it is more due to what happens 2015-2020 then what happens in the next couple years. It could easily look like the Reds with Griffey during the second half of the lost decade.

Not saying definitely no, but it does give me significant pause.

All very good points.

But the only way the Reds contend is if they can continue to produce young cheap talent through their farm system. If they can't do that, it really doesn't make any difference if they re-sign Votto or not.

Edd Roush
01-28-2012, 04:19 PM
Too long of a contract.

I am not too worried about Votto breaking down. I think he will be a top-10 bat in the bigs in 8 or 9 years. I just don't know if the Reds' budget will allow for a top-10 paid player in the bigs consuming 20+% of the budget.

dougdirt
01-28-2012, 05:40 PM
I am not too worried about Votto breaking down. I think he will be a top-10 bat in the bigs in 8 or 9 years. I just don't know if the Reds' budget will allow for a top-10 paid player in the bigs consuming 20+% of the budget.

Over the last 3-4 years, who has been a Top 10 bat in baseball at 35+? I don't know, but I can't think of one off of the top of my head either.

kaldaniels
01-28-2012, 05:48 PM
I was with you until I got to the bolded part, then you lost me.

The Reds are not even close to being the smallest market in baseball. Yes, Cincinnati is the smallest city to have an MLB team, but the Reds' market is in the middle of the pack. The size of a team's market is not limited to the people in the city. Some big cities don't have many baseball fans. Some small cities have lots of baseball fans. Some team's fan bases don't extend much beyond the city limits. Other teams have millions of dedicated fans 100+ miles from their stadium, and the Reds are one of those.

Can we get an official ruling on this? I have seen conflicting info in regards to the relative market size of the Reds compared to the other clubs in MLB.

AtomicDumpling
01-28-2012, 07:02 PM
Can we get an official ruling on this? I have seen conflicting info in regards to the relative market size of the Reds compared to the other clubs in MLB.

One good indicator is the Reds were 16th in attendance last year out of 30 teams. I would think the "smallest baseball market" would be at or near the bottom of the list. The Reds also had the 2nd highest road attendance (behind only the Yankees), meaning far-flung Reds fans often catch games in other cities too.

The Reds are also in the middle of the pack in terms of payroll and they are an extremely profitable franchise.

Teams like the Marlins, Athletics, Rays and Royals are the bottom markets over the last 10 years. It is reflected in their attendance and their payrolls. Even so, three of those teams have had periods of strong success in the last 10+ years.

A few years of winning baseball will rejuvenate the Reds fan base and market size. The Reds had a history of being one of the largest markets with top of the league ticket sales back in the 70's and 80's. Put a winning product on the field consistently and Reds fans will fill the ballpark.

When Marge Schott was the owner the Reds had one of the highest payrolls in the league year in and year out, despite her reputation as being cheap. Throughout the 90's the Reds were in the top 6 or so highest payrolls. In 1993 the Reds had the 2nd highest payroll in the majors. It wasn't until Marge got in trouble and the team passed into Carl Lindner's hands that the Reds' payroll fell down to around 20th in the league. That is when the small market mentality settled into the minds of Reds fans. But all the while the Reds were raking in huge profits on the losing teams.

kaldaniels
01-28-2012, 07:16 PM
Thanks for answering Atomic, but is what you described (attendance/payroll/profitability) a teams market?

mth123
01-28-2012, 07:20 PM
I think market size is more about the TV market and how many viewers that commercials running during the game can reach. For the most part, TV money is what finances the business. Attendance is a decent side business that some teams rely on a lot more on than others, but baseball is basically a TV show and that is where the money comes from.

I'd guess that there is some finite definition of how much potential viewership each team's market has and it sounds like the Reds are number 30.

AtomicDumpling
01-28-2012, 07:22 PM
Thanks for answering Atomic, but is what you described (attendance/payroll/profitability) a teams market?

I would say it is. A company advertises it's products to the people that are interested in them -- their market.

The number of people interested in possibly purchasing your product are your market.

An area with a huge population that is not interested in baseball is a smaller baseball market than a small city that is intensely interested in baseball.

In Cincinnati a high proportion of the residents are interested in baseball. In Miami a low proportion of the residents are interested in baseball. Miami is a larger city than Cincinnati, but Cincinnati is a larger baseball market -- especially when you consider that there are diehard Reds fans throughout the Midwest.

mth123
01-28-2012, 07:29 PM
I would say it is. A company advertises it's products to the people that are interested in them -- their market.

The number of people interested in possibly purchasing your product are your market.

An area with a huge population that is not interested in baseball is a smaller baseball market than a small city that is intensely interested in baseball.

In Cincinnati a high proportion of the residents are interested in baseball. In Miami a low proportion of the residents are interested in baseball. Miami is a larger city than Cincinnati, but Cincinnati is a larger baseball market -- especially when you consider that there are diehard Reds fans throughout the Midwest.

The number of people who actually watch isn't the market size. Its the market share. The market size itself is defined by the population.

AtomicDumpling
01-28-2012, 07:31 PM
I think market size is more about the TV market and how many viewers that commercials running during the game can reach. For the most part, TV money is what finances the business. Attendance is a decent side business that some teams rely on a lot more on than others, but baseball is basically a TV show and that is where the money comes from.

I'd guess that there is some finite definition of how much potential viewership each team's market has and it sounds like the Reds are number 30.

That explanation only takes population into account.

A marketer doesn't just look for the largest audience, he looks for the largest audience interested in his product.

The Super Bowl is the most-watched show on television during the year and is therefore the largest audience. Marketers know that people watching the show are sports fans, so most of the commercials are for things that sports fans might like to buy. A company that makes lipstick is not going to advertise to sports fans during the Super Bowl, but will instead choose to advertise during America's Top Model or some other show with a smaller audience that is actually interested in buying lipstick.

If you want to say Cincinnati is the smallest population market in MLB that is OK. If you say that Cincinnati is the smallest baseball market in MLB you would be way wrong.

AtomicDumpling
01-28-2012, 07:33 PM
The number of people who actually watch isn't the market size. Its the market share. The market size itself is defined by the population.

Your market share is the percent of the market that buys your product. People that are not interested in baseball are not part of the baseball market. There is a larger market for baseball in Cincinnati than in many other cities that have MLB teams.

mth123
01-28-2012, 07:43 PM
That explanation only takes population into account.

A marketer doesn't just look for the largest audience, he looks for the largest audience interested in his product.

The Super Bowl is the most-watched show on television during the year and is therefore the largest audience. Marketers know that people watching the show are sports fans, so most of the commercials are for things that sports fans might like to buy. A company that makes lipstick is not going to advertise to sports fans during the Super Bowl, but will instead choose to advertise during America's Top Model or some other show with a smaller audience that is actually interested in buying lipstick.

If you want to say Cincinnati is the smallest population market in MLB that is OK. If you say that Cincinnati is the smallest baseball market in MLB you would be way wrong.

I'm not an expert on TV advertizing revenue, so I should probably not go any further out on the limb, but I'll throw my limited understanding out there. Advertisers basically have a range of what they are willing to pay to advertise and the range is limited based on market size. Where the amount ends up within that range is influenced by ratinngs or market share. Even if the Ratings are good, the upper end is limited by the market size. I'd guess these ranges may be fairly flexible, but market size is definitely a limitation and when people are referring to it, it's about the actiual size of the market. not the share of people within the market that actually buy the product (or in this case watch the game).

The market share (the percentage of people actually watching) is why a team in the smallest market may not be the team with lowest TV revenue. Its probably semantics, because I don't think that the Reds have lower revenues than say Pitsburgh, but from a Market size standpoint, Pittsburgh is bigger. The larger market share in Cincy allows the Reds get more revenues. So the result is basically what you are saying, but when an article is talking about market size, I'd guess its referring to raw market size without the ratings being considered.

LegallyMinded
01-28-2012, 07:58 PM
Over the last 3-4 years, who has been a Top 10 bat in baseball at 35+? I don't know, but I can't think of one off of the top of my head either.

In 2008, Manny Ramirez was 3rd in wOBA at age 36. That's the only batter I can find that satisfies your criteria. The closest other candidates were Paul Konerko in 2010 (7th in wOBA at age 34) and Derrek Lee in 2009 (6th in wOBA at age 33).

Obviously, those three don't exactly bode well for hanging on as an elite hitter past the early-30s, as none of them has been able to maintain their level of production after the year mentioned above.

dougdirt
01-29-2012, 12:01 AM
That explanation only takes population into account.

A marketer doesn't just look for the largest audience, he looks for the largest audience interested in his product.

The Super Bowl is the most-watched show on television during the year and is therefore the largest audience. Marketers know that people watching the show are sports fans, so most of the commercials are for things that sports fans might like to buy. A company that makes lipstick is not going to advertise to sports fans during the Super Bowl, but will instead choose to advertise during America's Top Model or some other show with a smaller audience that is actually interested in buying lipstick.

If you want to say Cincinnati is the smallest population market in MLB that is OK. If you say that Cincinnati is the smallest baseball market in MLB you would be way wrong.

I would buy that if the Angels didn't just get a MEGA contract despite terrible ratings because the tv deal is based on what they COULD become rather than what they are currently.

Edd Roush
01-29-2012, 12:50 AM
Over the last 3-4 years, who has been a Top 10 bat in baseball at 35+? I don't know, but I can't think of one off of the top of my head either.

3 years ago Manny had a .949 OPS as a 37 year old and the year before (obviously as a 36 year old) he had a 1.000+ OPS. The year three years ago is debatable top-10, but the year four years ago, is clearly top 10.

This argument works well for why Votto could steal be a premier bat in baseball as a 35+ year old and why Manny is worth signing on the cheap lol.

It was only 5 years ago that Barry Bonds had a 1.000+ OPS as a 42 year old. I know that they were both aided by steroids, but they still had the bat speed and hand-eye coordination to put up great numbers without the 'roids.

A Rod was also pretty good in his age 35 year. I am concerned about the budget and Joey's impact on it, but I would really like to extend this window by extending Joey Votto.

kaldaniels
01-29-2012, 12:59 AM
3 years ago Manny had a .949 OPS as a 37 year old and the year before (obviously as a 36 year old) he had a 1.000+ OPS. The year three years ago is debatable top-10, but the year four years ago, is clearly top 10.

This argument works well for why Votto could steal be a premier bat in baseball as a 35+ year old and why Manny is worth signing on the cheap lol.

It was only 5 years ago that Barry Bonds had a 1.000+ OPS as a 42 year old. I know that they were both aided by steroids, but they still had the bat speed and hand-eye coordination to put up great numbers without the 'roids.

A Rod was also pretty good in his age 35 year. I am concerned about the budget and Joey's impact on it, but I would really like to extend this window by extending Joey Votto.

I just don't think there are any "buts" allowed with roiders putting up out of the norm stats. Think about it, Doug asked you to provide players who put up outstanding numbers who were over 35, and all you could produce were steroid guys. That tells me all I need to know.

kaldaniels
01-29-2012, 01:03 AM
I just don't think there are any "buts" allowed with roiders putting up out of the norm stats. Think about it, Doug asked you to provide players who put up outstanding numbers who were over 35, and all you could produce were steroid guys. That tells me all I need to know.

And I'll add...I get that there are many reasons to extend Votto. But counting on an elite bat from age 35 to 38 is not something that can be backed up if you look at the normal age progression of players.

Vottomatic
01-29-2012, 10:31 AM
One thing I keep thinking about is that I don't believe that if the Reds wanted to trade Joey now, that they would get much in return for him with him hitting free agency after 2 more seasons. Is he really worth that much to some team for 2 years?

If he is, the dilemma is trying to win it all vs. getting something for him now if you don't think you can sign him long term. A duh statement. But obviously his value declines after 2012 when a trading partner would only have him for 1 year.

If the Reds can't sign him or afford to sign him long term, then they are in the same boat at the Cards were with Pujols, in that they will have to go for it for 2 years and let him walk and get nothing in return.

Edd Roush
01-29-2012, 10:39 AM
I just don't think there are any "buts" allowed with roiders putting up out of the norm stats. Think about it, Doug asked you to provide players who put up outstanding numbers who were over 35, and all you could produce were steroid guys. That tells me all I need to know.

Unfortunately, many of the hitters who had "Top 10" years in the last ten years are alleged or confirmed steroid users (McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Bonds and Manny, etc.). It's hard to find many "Top 10" hitters who didn't use steroids. Maybe I'm being naiive, but I think Votto has the kind of skills (elite batting eye and elite bat speed) that won't deteriorate when he hits 35. Bonds and Manny both used steriods, yes. But they had elite batting eyes and elite bat speed. I don't think steroids aided these skills. I think Votto is a good bet to be an elite bat when he is 35 for these reasons.

steig
01-29-2012, 12:03 PM
Unfortunately, many of the hitters who had "Top 10" years in the last ten years are alleged or confirmed steroid users (McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Bonds and Manny, etc.). It's hard to find many "Top 10" hitters who didn't use steroids. Maybe I'm being naiive, but I think Votto has the kind of skills (elite batting eye and elite bat speed) that won't deteriorate when he hits 35. Bonds and Manny both used steriods, yes. But they had elite batting eyes and elite bat speed. I don't think steroids aided these skills. I think Votto is a good bet to be an elite bat when he is 35 for these reasons.

Steroids aided in their ability to recover and have elite bat speed and power each and every day. Look at how Griffey's bat speed deteriorated with age. I don't think any team in the market size of the Reds should invest that mush money in a play who is going to be on the wrong side of 30. If Votto had gotten to the majors at an early age and was 3 years younger then this would be a different scenario. A single bat isn't worth that much money for a mid market team. If it was the Cards would not have let Albert leave. And I don't believe anyone has stated that the Angles contract for Albert will look good over the long haul.

Edd Roush
01-29-2012, 12:42 PM
Steroids aided in their ability to recover and have elite bat speed and power each and every day. Look at how Griffey's bat speed deteriorated with age. I don't think any team in the market size of the Reds should invest that mush money in a play who is going to be on the wrong side of 30. If Votto had gotten to the majors at an early age and was 3 years younger then this would be a different scenario. A single bat isn't worth that much money for a mid market team. If it was the Cards would not have let Albert leave. And I don't believe anyone has stated that the Angles contract for Albert will look good over the long haul.

I know it's different circumstances, but the most important time in the Reds' past they worried about a player turning 30 (in a much less medically advanced age) they traded a player away who went on to hit for the Triple Crown and win an MVP and beat the Reds in a World Series.

Pujols is older than Votto and the Cardinals tried their hardest to keep him around. The Reds should do the same with Votto.

HokieRed
01-29-2012, 05:19 PM
I know it's different circumstances, but the most important time in the Reds' past they worried about a player turning 30 (in a much less medically advanced age) they traded a player away who went on to hit for the Triple Crown and win an MVP and beat the Reds in a World Series.

Pujols is older than Votto and the Cardinals tried their hardest to keep him around. The Reds should do the same with Votto.

As one who was around during the Robinson days, and who has never gotten over this trade, I doubt anybody actually believed the Reds were worried about Frank being an "old 30." They just didn't want to pay him.

Edd Roush
01-29-2012, 05:41 PM
As one who was around during the Robinson days, and who has never gotten over this trade, I doubt anybody actually believed the Reds were worried about Frank being an "old 30." They just didn't want to pay him.

Well, I would hate for the same thing to happen again with Votto. Obviously the inflation in baseball salaries is astronomical since this time, but Votto is a Robinson-level hitter and I hope the Reds do all they can to keep him around.

mth123
01-29-2012, 05:56 PM
I'd do 7/160 for Votto. If the Reds have it worked out that they can afford him next year with a $17.5 Million salary and a $1.5 Million bonus, its less than $4 Million in added cash per season during the extension. It just means they'll need productive kids filling in elsewhere.

OTOH, if the Reds have to cut ties, they should have some money to get competent middle of the order production to replace him. It won't be Votto level, but if Latos, Chapman, Cueto, Bailey and Leake pan out, this team won't become an instant loser. Hopefully by then Bruce and Mesoraco will have taken a step forward commensurate with their prospect status and another added productive bat, even if its not Votto, will stil provide a productive middle of the order. If Soto and Francisco can provide some Jermaine Dye like pop in the 6 or 7 hole, this could be a much deeper line-up that is less dependant on one player like it is now with Votto. The addition of Latos changes the post Votto picture dramatically IMO.

TRF
01-31-2012, 10:51 AM
Over the last 3-4 years, who has been a Top 10 bat in baseball at 35+? I don't know, but I can't think of one off of the top of my head either.

Konerko was 35 last year. .906 OPS, 31 HR's. That may not be a top 10 MLB bat, but is was top 10 in the AL. He's the player to look at and compare to going forward IMO. Similar body style to Votto, same position.

Edd Roush
01-31-2012, 12:26 PM
Konerko was 35 last year. .906 OPS, 31 HR's. That may not be a top 10 MLB bat, but is was top 10 in the AL. He's the player to look at and compare to going forward IMO. Similar body style to Votto, same position.

Thanks for the assistance, TRF. I would add on to this argument that Votto's peak is already higher than Konerko and if he ages on the same decline, I think we could expect even more than a .906 OPS from Votto in his Age 35 year.

Gallen5862
01-31-2012, 02:25 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Reds GM Walt Jocketty said he hopes to lock Joey Votto and Brandon Phillips up long-term, even though doing so would require major commitments, MLB.com youth correspondent Meggie Zahneis reports. "Everyone has to understand that these are expensive deals and there is only so much we can do," Jocketty said. An extension for Votto would likely require one of the largest deals in MLB history.