PDA

View Full Version : Votto extended through 2023- 10 years, $225m



Pages : 1 [2] 3

RedEye
04-02-2012, 10:39 PM
Maybe the biggest shock -- we really can't complain in the same way about being a "small market" team anymore. At least not for the next few years! (until Votto's contract starts to eat us alive!) :D

dougdirt
04-02-2012, 10:39 PM
Maybe the biggest shock -- we really can't complain in the same way about being a "small market" team anymore. At least not for the next few years! (until Votto's contract starts to eat us alive!) :D

Sure we can. Until our payroll goes higher, we are a small market team who is paying a superstar.

edabbs44
04-02-2012, 10:41 PM
Thanks Bob...just dropped $100 on Reds merch, including a Votto jersey for the little man. Hopefully more people do the same to show their gratitude.

RedEye
04-02-2012, 10:43 PM
Sure we can. Until our payroll goes higher, we are a small market team who is paying a superstar.

Well, okay, we can complain. But we can't complain about losing our superstar in 2013... which is what I was fully expecting!

Raisor
04-02-2012, 10:47 PM
I demand to know what Ghost of 1990 thinks about this!

VR
04-02-2012, 10:48 PM
Now maybe the Reds can finally move Votto to LF. :D

pure gold

Raisor
04-02-2012, 10:49 PM
All Toronto fans should be put on suicide watch. I expext Starbuck's stock to go up 15 percent tomorrow.

Captain Hook
04-02-2012, 10:50 PM
Well, okay, we can complain. But we can't complain about losing our superstar in 2013... which is what I was fully expecting!

Yeah, two years from now we can all gripe about the Reds needing one more star to help Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Marshall and Latos out.That sounds a whole lot worse if you leave the first guys name out and that would probably be the case if not for this deal.

RedEye
04-02-2012, 10:53 PM
Yeah, two years from now we can all gripe about the Reds needing one more star to help Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Marshall and Latos out.That sounds a whole lot worse if you leave the first guys name out and that would probably be the case if not for this deal.

I'm hoping Mesoraco is going to be that guy...

Matt700wlw
04-02-2012, 10:53 PM
I trust this ownership a hell of a lot more than I trust the previous one.

Latos, young stud...locked up. Marshall, one of the best relievers in baseball, future (now current) closer...locked up. Jay Bruce, who's bound to break out...locked up. Cueto, our new number 1, locked up....

Votto. The Franchise player...locked up.

Phillips? Who knows? I'd love to see him back, but he is the older player.....and I won't put it past this organization to get a deal done with him too. Doubtful it will be Votto-like, but it shouldn't be...

A GM with a history of winning, and an owner who knows him....

All long term deals are risks, and big money deals are bigger risks, but you have to take risks in this business. I think they took a good one today, and sent a message that they are SERIOUS about winning, not only this year, but for a while.



It's not my money...it's their money.

Sea Ray
04-02-2012, 10:57 PM
I think we need to accept that we're going to have to do without Brandon Phillips next yr. He's the guy left out. I like BP but I'm OK with it

dougdirt
04-02-2012, 10:58 PM
I think we need to accept that we're going to have to do without Brandon Phillips next yr. He's the guy left out. I like BP but I'm OK with it

I am ok with it as well.... because over the next 4+ years, he is the one likely to decline the most.

Captain Hook
04-02-2012, 11:00 PM
I think we need to accept that we're going to have to do without Brandon Phillips next yr. He's the guy left out. I like BP but I'm OK with it

If I had a dollar for every time I heard some one say that about Votto I'd have more then enough to pay for my new authentic #19 Reds jersey I'm about to order.

Vottomatic
04-02-2012, 11:02 PM
Dat Dude just tweeted he feels left out. ;)

Gainesville Red
04-02-2012, 11:03 PM
Votto's come a long way.

A segment of RZ once wanted him traded for Joe Blanton.

RedEye
04-02-2012, 11:04 PM
Votto's come a long way.

A segment of RZ once wanted him traded for Joe Blanton.

Or Erik Bedard...

Caveat Emperor
04-02-2012, 11:07 PM
So, when does the fanbase turn on him, as they do nearly all Reds players who get paid big dollars? I've got 2017 as the tentative date.

Caseyfan21
04-02-2012, 11:10 PM
So, when does the fanbase turn on him, as they do nearly all Reds players who get paid big dollars? I've got 2017 as the tentative date.

My guess is someone will suggest we should trade him for X player within 2 years. :laugh:

AmarilloRed
04-02-2012, 11:15 PM
10 years-225 million? Did someone in Reds management win the Lotto? :) I'll expect half of this money to be deferred, and a raise of budget to 100 million starting next year to pay for it. I hope this deal doesn't preclude a extension for Latos down the line.

RedEye
04-02-2012, 11:17 PM
10 years-225 million? Did someone in Reds management win the Lotto? :) I'll expect half of this money to be deferred, and a raise of budget to 100 million starting next year to pay for it. I hope this deal doesn't preclude a extension for Latos down the line.

Probably a bit early to talk about extensions for the other core pieces, right? Bruce, Latos, Cueto and Marshall are all probably okay for the next two or so years (that is, unless one of them blows up and wins a major award).

CySeymour
04-02-2012, 11:23 PM
This thread is my first career sticky. I picked a good topic, eh?

dougdirt
04-02-2012, 11:23 PM
This thread is my first career sticky. I picked a good topic, eh?

It wasn't a bad one.

AmarilloRed
04-02-2012, 11:29 PM
Probably a bit early to talk about extensions for the other core pieces, right? Bruce, Latos, Cueto and Marshall are all probably okay for the next two or so years (that is, unless one of them blows up and wins a major award).

Latos has 2 years of service time and is eligible for arbitration in 2013-next offseason. I don't think it's unreasonable that he would get 10 million in arbitration, if he has the kind of year we're expecting.

KronoRed
04-02-2012, 11:29 PM
So, when does the fanbase turn on him, as they do nearly all Reds players who get paid big dollars? I've got 2017 as the tentative date.

You're being generous, I'm going with next year.

Brutus
04-02-2012, 11:31 PM
This thread is my first career sticky. I picked a good topic, eh?

You'll really make history if, in eight years from now, you also get stickied when he's traded to Chicago for a low-A minor leaguer and $20 million in cash.

Gainesville Red
04-02-2012, 11:32 PM
You're being generous, I'm going with next year.

First Cubs win in GAB.

CySeymour
04-02-2012, 11:33 PM
You'll really make history if, in eight years from now, you also get stickied when he's traded to Chicago for a low-A minor leaguer and $20 million in cash.

He'll be traded for Trey Griffey.

KronoRed
04-02-2012, 11:34 PM
He'll be traded for Trey Griffey.

That's gonna be something, he's a football player :eek:

SirFelixCat
04-02-2012, 11:42 PM
Too much time is spent fretting what this will cost the Reds down the road.

What I know, Joey Votto is one of the best players in baseball regardless of position and we have him for the next dozen years. To me thats a win for this franchise and fan base. If some of you would rather spend your time worrying if we can sign a free agent in 2017 you go ahead.

:beerme:

cincrazy
04-02-2012, 11:47 PM
Sure we can. Until our payroll goes higher, we are a small market team who is paying a superstar.

It's a risk, yes. But in business, you have to spend money to make money. And if the Reds ever hoped to expand their market, bring in more fans, and ramp up the interest, this is a heck of a way to do it. Maybe it blows up in their face. But I like the risk. And I expect a bump in payroll to follow. I'm sure that's been taken into account. I don't think Bob does this deal if he anticipates an $80 million a year payroll.

4256 Hits
04-02-2012, 11:52 PM
Wow...After KGJ I can't help but think this will turn out bad....boy do I hope I am wrong.

PuffyPig
04-02-2012, 11:52 PM
Too much time is spent fretting what this will cost the Reds down the road.

What I know, Joey Votto is one of the best players in baseball regardless of position and we have him for the next dozen years. To me thats a win for this franchise and fan base. If some of you would rather spend your time worrying if we can sign a free agent in 2017 you go ahead.

Boom.

PuffyPig
04-02-2012, 11:53 PM
What 10 year deal has worked out well for the team?



Name one that hasn't......

kaldaniels
04-02-2012, 11:54 PM
You're being generous, I'm going with next year.

Heck I bet there are some in the woodwork right now who would release him today if it would clear the Reds of this contract.

kaldaniels
04-03-2012, 12:00 AM
There could be a DH as well in Cincy in 5 years. Something to chew on.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 12:05 AM
There could be a DH as well in Cincy in 5 years. Something to chew on.

I would say Bud Selig wearing a dress to the AS game is more likely.

RedsManRick
04-03-2012, 12:26 AM
The name that came to mind for me when I saw the deal was Todd Helton. Obviously the dollars are higher, but it's the same sort of contract for the same sort of player for the same sort of team.

There is very little, if any, upside on the deal in terms of surplus value. But what it does is lock up a player of a caliber is who literally inaccessible to the Reds otherwise. The thing that really stands out to me is that Adrian Gonzalez signed for comparable dollars but for just 7 years. I think that's where the Fielder and Pujols deals really "hurt" the Reds -- essentially forced Jocketty to do not just the dollars but the years.

kaldaniels
04-03-2012, 12:37 AM
The name that came to mind for me when I saw the deal was Todd Helton. Obviously the dollars are higher, but it's the same sort of contract for the same sort of player for the same sort of team.

There is very little, if any, upside on the deal in terms of surplus value. But what it does is lock up a player of a caliber is who literally inaccessible to the Reds otherwise. The thing that really stands out to me is that Adrian Gonzalez signed for comparable dollars but for just 7 years. I think that's where the Fielder and Pujols deals really "hurt" the Reds -- essentially forced Jocketty to do not just the dollars but the years.

So where are you on this one Rick? I feel like I have an angel and devil on my shoulders fighting about it myself.

Blitz Dorsey
04-03-2012, 12:44 AM
This makes up for the Madson injury and then some. Cloud 9 y'all, cloud freakin' 9.

Actually Cloud 19 might be more appropriate. Loving life.

WVPacman
04-03-2012, 12:45 AM
Did the reds ever come out and announce it official yet?

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 12:49 AM
Did the reds ever come out and announce it official yet?

Not yet, no.

OnBaseMachine
04-03-2012, 01:11 AM
I'm not even going to worry about if Votto will be worth $21M or not when he's 37-38. I'd rather focus on the fact that the Reds just locked up one of the best hitters in the game for the next decade+. I'm excited for the fact Votto could do something you don't see much of anymore - spend his whole career with one team, and possibly go into the Hall of Fame if he stays healthy. Great signing by the Reds.

RedsManRick
04-03-2012, 01:27 AM
So where are you on this one Rick? I feel like I have an angel and devil on my shoulders fighting about it myself.

Me too. Which usually signifies that I don't like it and just don't want to face up to that fact.

Seriously though, I think we've seen Votto's best season. He's a stellar player, but we'll probably get a few more years of elite production left. All he needs is to lose that edge that lets him sustain a crazy high BABIP and he goes from MVP to mere star. Add in some routine aging and he's just good.

His power is solid, but he's not Fielder. He makes good contact, but he's not Pujols. If he hits .280/.380/.500 next year, how happy will people be? What if 5 years from now it's more like .270/.360/.475 and we've got him for 7 years and $155MM still?

If the media contract revenue that's projected league-wide comes through, perhaps $22.5MM+ won't seem like that much. But it's hard to appreciate just how big the deal is. It's basically twice what Junior got. It's the 4th largest contract in MLB history, behind ARod x2 and Pujols. And FWIW, that makes it the 4th largest in sports history. From 2014 through 2023, Joey Votto will make more per year than the entire 1990 World Series Champion Reds. And Adrian Gonzalez'ss deal is up in Boston, Votto will have 5 years left on his deal. AGone is only 1 year older than Votto.

Don't get me wrong. I love having Votto in Red for the rest of his career. I'm just trying to get me my head around the idea that by the time Votto's contract expires, I will have turned both 30 and 40. We could see three different presidents, not including Obama. It's a long, long time.

I cannot shake the feeling that when it's all said and done, the Reds will regret the deal. But for the foreseeable future, I'm just going to be happy that Joey Votto isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

That said, here's a list of all of the players since 1960 who, through their age 27 season, had accumulated a 150 OPS+ over at least 2000 PA. 10 guys have done it. Of the 9 guys other than Votto, all of them had illustrious careers. Two of them are in the Hall of Fame (Aaron, Jackson). Four of them are no doubters for the Hall (Thomas, Pujols, Piazza, Griffey). Of the other three, Bagwell should get in the Hall eventually and is clearly deserving. Meanwhile, both Dick Allen and Fred McGriff had stellar careers that left them on the borderline and just a tad short -- Allen because he was controversial and flamed out at 33 and McGriff because he settled in as a very good but not great player for the remainder of his career. Both guys passed the 60 WAR mark.



Player OPS+ Year
Frank Thomas 183 1995
Albert Pujols 167 2007
Dick Allen 163 1969
Hank Aaron 163 1961
Mike Piazza 155 1996
Jeff Bagwell 152 1995
Fred McGriff 152 1991
Joey Votto 151 2011
Ken Griffey Jr 150 1997
Reggie Jackson 150 1973

I must say, having gone through all of that does make me feel better. If Richie Allen/Fred McGriff is the downside, that's not half bad. I think the two guys ahead of him paint two likely scenarios. Bagwell added power in his 30s, stayed an elite player and put up 60 WAR over the remainder of his career - a total that would easily justify Votto's contract. McGriff saw the power fade and put up about 37 WAR, which would come up short. Allen is an interesting comp because his early years were so clearly marked by an unsustainably high BABIP and one standout power season. But had he played in to his late 30's, he would have been a no doubt HOFer.

One last thing -- Frank Thomas! Most underappreciated slugger of the era?

Tom Servo
04-03-2012, 01:47 AM
Grass Roots - Let's Live For Today [Very Good(-) quality / No mpg4 resolution] - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJlY2QThjoA)

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2012, 01:51 AM
The Cameron article is fascinating...

Some interesting quotes that shouldn't be overlooked...


It’s probably pretty close to it, honestly. Votto’s been a +7 win player each of the last two years, but a decent chunk of his offensive value is tied up in his career .352 BABIP, which is pretty much the absolute upper limit for a sustainable performance over the long term. Over the last 20 years, the top three on the BABIP leaderboard (min 3000 PA) are Derek Jeter (.355), Matt Kemp (.352, just barely over 3000 PA), and Ichiro Suzuki (.351). You’ll probably note that all three of them are pretty fast, and can leg out infield hits when they need to. The best comparison for Votto is Miguel Cabrera, who comes in at .347 – in other words, it’s not impossible for Votto to keep getting balls to fall in at this rate, but there’s really nowhere for him to go but down in that area. More likely, we should probably project Votto as a +6 win player going forward, which accounts for some overall regression and variability of health.


Given that he’s in his prime, we can probably sustain Votto as a +6 win player for three years before we project age-related decline, and then we’d accelerate the decline towards the end of his career when his skills are likely to disappear a bit faster. So, a projection for Votto over the next 12 years might go something like this:

2012: +6 WAR
2013: +6 WAR
2014: +5.5 WAR
2015: +5.0 WAR
2016: +4.5 WAR
2017: +4.0 WAR
2018: +3.5 WAR
2019: +2.8 WAR
2020: +2.1 WAR
2021: +1.4 WAR
2022: +0.7 WAR
2023: +0.0 WAR

Total: +41.5 WAR

If we start at $5 million per win and apply the 5% future inflation to these expected performances, we’d get a total of $249 million over the next 12 years, almost exactly what the Reds just signed Votto for. But, again, that model is for free agents, and Votto was two years away from free agency. In other words, the Reds basically didn’t seem to get any kind of discount for taking on additional risk.

Basically, Cameron has said that Votto has to bring in 41.5 WAR for 12 years for this deal to be breakeven. That may be realistic, but it's asking a lot. That's a huge task and an enormous risk for a team like the Reds.

Count me in for not liking this deal. I think if it had been an 8 year extension, it would've been easier to swallow. Heck, I would've preferred 7 years. Don't get me wrong, I'm an enormous Votto fan. I think his work ethic is incredible, I think he has great instincts and he's special. But I don't think there's any player I'd pay that kind of money to for that many years that go that late into their career. It's too risky given the inevitable decline, that tends to go rather fast when you get to the 35-36 seasons.

So if everything goes great and Votto plays well and doesn't become injured, the Reds may be paying a guy for 5ish years at an exorbitant salary for limited and declining production.

MattyHo4Life
04-03-2012, 01:53 AM
I just started reading this thread....is there really a full no trade clause included in this deal?

RedsManRick
04-03-2012, 02:01 AM
I just started reading this thread....is there really a full no trade clause included in this deal?

It appears so. Given Votto's comments, I imagine that was a must have. I found the comment to John Fay extremely insightful. I don't think he wanted any part of New York or Los Angeles.

I'm just surprised Jocketty made the move now. Let's say he wins another MVP this year. Would he have cost the Reds any more? Would he have been any more likely to spurn 10/225?

The Operator
04-03-2012, 02:02 AM
Who was it that had a source in the organization that said Cincy was too conserative for Joey? And he WOULD NOT re-sign. Might need to get a new mole.Same guy who started the "fancy coffee" rumors.

757690
04-03-2012, 02:08 AM
In those declining years, say from 2019-23, the Reds will obviously be overpaying Votto. However, that only matters if that prevents them from acquiring players they need to contend in those years. Given that it is so far in the future, the Reds should be ble to plan ahead enough so that that isn't the case.

More importantly, this contract means that the Reds should be contenders for the next four to six years, which should generate revenue and popularity, making it easier to acquire that talent in the later years.

Gainesville Red
04-03-2012, 02:14 AM
Same guy who started the "fancy coffee" rumors.

And here we are. Years later. An ongoing joke in chat.

He'll never fit in in Cincinnati, what with his fancy coffee and designer clothes. Too fancy.

REDREAD
04-03-2012, 02:14 AM
Overpaying is a requisite if you want to keep guys like Joey Votto in town or attracting them on an open market. It's very possible the last 3-4 years on this deal won't get much productivity. I say that's a small price to pay for having an MVP candidate for the next 5-7 years.


Yep, I agree completely.. Maybe this deal hoses us in 2020 and beyond.. but it really sets us up good until then.

The alternative (dump all your players as they get expensive) really doesn't work either.

Votto is a huge impact player.. I don't mind slightly overpaying..

camisadelgolf
04-03-2012, 02:25 AM
MLB Network is showing 8 year extension of the original deal at less than $180 million per year.
What a bargain!

reds44
04-03-2012, 03:23 AM
What a bargain!
That's wrong.

His contract is 12/251.5.

Johnny Footstool
04-03-2012, 03:56 AM
I just tweeted something like that. Put him at $25M over the next 5 years, then $15M the next 5. Makes a lot of sense.

Welcome to my ideas from 6 weeks ago. :)

But, as it was pointed out to me, the Players' Union wouldn't allow such a deal.

Brutus
04-03-2012, 04:16 AM
That's wrong.

His contract is 12/251.5.

Until the organization confirms the specifics, it's hard to know for sure what's right and what's wrong.

WMR
04-03-2012, 04:26 AM
A UK Championship and a Joey Votto extension on the same day???

YESSIR.

:D

Brutus
04-03-2012, 04:54 AM
And both was money very well spent!

WMR
04-03-2012, 04:54 AM
And both was money very well spent!

Sour grapes make sweet wine. ;)

Pretty amusing you'd actually want to start discussing NCAA violations. :D

AtomicDumpling
04-03-2012, 05:23 AM
I am thrilled that Votto will be staying in Cincinnati, but boy oh boy is this a risky deal for the Reds. I don't really see the logic in signing him to this top-dollar extension two full years before his current contract expires. If Votto does not continue to perform at an MVP level both this year and next year this contract extension could look very, very silly before it even starts in 2014. Since the Reds clearly did not get a discount why would they do this now instead of in 2013 or 2014? I would have waited until 2014 before deciding how to spend my $225 million if I were Castellini. There might be better options for that cash when the time comes.

It sure is nice to see the Reds being aggressive and making a real effort to win. They spent a lot of cash and a lot of prospects to make a strong push for the World Series in the next few years. I have been waiting for this for many years. Play Ball!

edabbs44
04-03-2012, 07:12 AM
It appears so. Given Votto's comments, I imagine that was a must have. I found the comment to John Fay extremely insightful. I don't think he wanted any part of New York or Los Angeles.

I'm just surprised Jocketty made the move now. Let's say he wins another MVP this year. Would he have cost the Reds any more? Would he have been any more likely to spurn 10/225?

That question is hard to answer, as we don't know what could happen next year. That Fangraphs article is saying that the landscape is changing with regard to salaries, so what if a lesser player ended up getting that money next year?

mth123
04-03-2012, 07:18 AM
Forgetting the "value" equations for a minute, this deal is a gift to the fans of the Reds and will ensure that the team has a legacy player for the fans to associate with the team. Consider that when this deal ends in 2023, Frank Robinson will be 87, Pete Rose will be 82, Tony Perez 81, and Johnny Bench will be 75. Heck, Barry Larkin will be 59 and even Jr. will be 54. As those players fade farther away from the consciousness of the Cincy fanbase, I'm thrilled that the city will have such a talented and classy player to call its own.

I think there is a difficult to measure value to the franchise in having such a player. I thnk the "overpayment" that may occur as this deal winds down, may actually be a small price to pay for the value that having such players brings to the franchise and its brand.

mth123
04-03-2012, 07:42 AM
That question is hard to answer, as we don't know what could happen next year. That Fangraphs article is saying that the landscape is changing with regard to salaries, so what if a lesser player ended up getting that money next year?

Agreed. The big money local TV deals that have been handed out in Texas and to both LA teams along with the record setting franchise sale in LA are going to make all the numbers go up IMO. This deal is huge, but may seem a bargain by the time January of 2014 rolls around. The pie is getting larger and even the other markets that share in the revenue will get revenue bumps from the deals in LA and Texas. As other franchises deals come up for renewal those deals will increase as well. I'm guessing a $100 Million payroll will be the norm very soon for medium markets and even small markets will have the revenue to afford well in excess of $85 Million.

Just have to keep the farm productive to surround the stars with cheap production. That is the primary difference when comparing the effect of this deal to the deal for Griffey. Votto is the signature taste on top of the dish that the farm is cooking up. In Griffey's case he was the taste, the dish, the side order, the salad, the dishwasher and the busboy.

membengal
04-03-2012, 07:45 AM
I don't care about the money. It's not my money. I suspect Bobby C is not a stupid man, and wouldn't spend it if he didn't have it. I also suspect he wouldn't spend it if it meant they would never be able to add or keep talent around Votto.

All I know is I no longer have to feel like I am rooting for a baseball team that is on the wrong side of a stacked deck in this sport. And that feels really, really good this morning.

mth123
04-03-2012, 07:46 AM
I don't care about the money. It's not my money. I suspect Carl Lindner is not a stupid man, and wouldn't spend it if he didn't have it. I also suspect he wouldn't spend it if it meant they would never be able to add or keep talent around Votto.

All I know is I no longer have to feel like I am rooting for a baseball team that is on the wrong side of a stacked deck in this sport. And that feels really, really good this morning.

Bob Castellini. But agree with your point.

I do care about the money and its effect on the talent that can be put around Votto. I just think the doomsayers are overstating the negative impact.

membengal
04-03-2012, 07:55 AM
Sorrry mth and all, too early and a brain fart. Didn't mean to impugn B-Cast that way. Edited.

I would care about the money if I thought Castellini hadn't thought this through. But I am betting he really has. And if they pulled the trigger, I am betting they can afford this and the steps necessary to maximize having Votto to the end of his career.

edabbs44
04-03-2012, 08:01 AM
Sorrry mth and all, too early and a brain fart. Didn't mean to impugn B-Cast that way. Edited.

I would care about the money if I thought Castellini hadn't thought this through. But I am betting he really has. And if they pulled the trigger, I am betting they can afford this and the steps necessary to maximize having Votto to the end of his career.

Yep. Castellini and Jocketty know what they are doing. They have crunched the numbers and run through the models. I think these guys have proven themselves and deserve nothing but the full faith of the fan base.

Dan
04-03-2012, 08:08 AM
As far as whether BCast has the money or not, keep in mind something else, too. The value of franchises continues to rise. Having winning franchises makes the value go up that much faster. The way I understand it is...there isn't a direct correlation between revenue and payroll, and that if you can expect your franchise value to increase by $50-$75 million each season, then paying an extra $10-$15 on top of what you might budget for payroll if the club value remained constant is a good investment in the long run. Ten years from now BCast is going to come out WAY ahead as long as the franchise increases its value each year.

Now, get BP signed to a 4-year extension (plus option/buy-out) for $61 ($12-$14-$15-$17-$20($3)) and let's ride this core (Votto/Bruce/Phillips/Cueto/Latos/Marshall) to a WS Championship or two.

MikeS21
04-03-2012, 08:52 AM
The whole thing feels as if the Reds went out and bought the brand new Rolls Royce, when the budget only allows for a brand new Buick. And because the Reds opened the bank for Votto, folks like Cueto, Bruce, and Latos are going to expect the same. Can't you imagine a payroll where these four are getting paid a total of about $75-$80 million at the same time? Nor can I.

It's a nice gesture for the fans, but I would be very surprised if Votto is still here in 2020. A no trade clause only means Votto has to OK any trade - and after ten years, that was guaranteed anyway.

PuffyPig
04-03-2012, 09:00 AM
Now, get BP signed to a 4-year extension (plus option/buy-out) for $61 ($12-$14-$15-$17-$20($3)) and let's ride this core (Votto/Bruce/Phillips/Cueto/Latos/Marshall) to a WS Championship or two.

Lot's of better ways to spend $61M over 4 years........

kaldaniels
04-03-2012, 09:10 AM
Lot's of better ways to spend $61M over 4 years........

How much are the Reds paying Arroyo, Rolen, and Phillips in 2012?

How much are they paying Votto in 2023?

Perspective?

sonny
04-03-2012, 09:14 AM
Will he be as productive in the latter stages of this contract? No.

Will we be overpaying when he reaches the latter stages of this contract? Probably.

Will I care about any of that if the Reds win the series anytime during this contract? Nope.

medford
04-03-2012, 09:30 AM
I haven't sorted thru the last 10 pages or so since yesterday afternoon, but how much does each team expect to make off the increased playoffs? I know its only 1 game, but its got to be worth something and even more if the plan is to expand it from 1 game to 3 games. The Reds could be using that as their future payroll projections.

_Sir_Charles_
04-03-2012, 09:32 AM
Well, I haven't chimed in yet so here goes.

First let me say that I love the fact that he signed here. Period.

Secondly, concerning the years and dollar amount...I'm really not very concerned about it. For several reasons.

One, we don't know TRUTHFULLY what the Reds owners have available to spend. Everybody speculates as to what they can and can't afford, but nobody here truthfully knows.

Second, we also don't know what the impact will be of repeatedly putting a quality team on the field will do to attendance and future payrolls.

Third, we don't know where the owners stand in regards to working out a new TV deal.

And lastly, it's not my money.

As long as the team in competitive and putting forth an honest effort to WIN...I'm happy. All of this arguing and debating over how much this effects the future & present of the team is kinda pointless since nobody knows the facts from either side.

I'm just happy that Joey's going to remain in Red for the coming future.

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 09:33 AM
Welcome to my ideas from 6 weeks ago. :)

But, as it was pointed out to me, the Players' Union wouldn't allow such a deal.

The union doesn't really have a say in it. They can throw a fit about it, but if a player agrees to it, there isn't anything that they can do about it.

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 09:35 AM
As far as whether BCast has the money or not, keep in mind something else, too. The value of franchises continues to rise. Having winning franchises makes the value go up that much faster. The way I understand it is...there isn't a direct correlation between revenue and payroll, and that if you can expect your franchise value to increase by $50-$75 million each season, then paying an extra $10-$15 on top of what you might budget for payroll if the club value remained constant is a good investment in the long run. Ten years from now BCast is going to come out WAY ahead as long as the franchise increases its value each year.

Now, get BP signed to a 4-year extension (plus option/buy-out) for $61 ($12-$14-$15-$17-$20($3)) and let's ride this core (Votto/Bruce/Phillips/Cueto/Latos/Marshall) to a WS Championship or two.

I love what Brandon Phillips brings to the table, but even at $14M, he is overpaid, much less 20.

redsmetz
04-03-2012, 09:43 AM
The union doesn't really have a say in it. They can throw a fit about it, but if a player agrees to it, there isn't anything that they can do about it.

I agree with you. Often we bandy about around here what they union may or may not like, but do we really know that? If, perhaps, Votto's contract has the type of peak or front loading that some have suggested, but the final dollar amount is equal, I can't imagine why the union would object to that. These contracts are reaching a point (it would seem) where some viable creativity will be needed and however it is accomplished should be welcomed by all the parties involved. I think Votto hinted at what a contract may look like late in its life, so nothing would surprise me really. But I think folks assume the union will have objections when we have no way of knowing that, not to mention sometimes it just seems illogical that there would be an objection.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 09:58 AM
Second, we also don't know what the impact will be of repeatedly putting a quality team on the field will do to attendance and future payrolls.

.

Attendance only jumped 7% from 2010 to 2011 after the Reds first winning season in many years. I don't see attendance jumping anytime soon if that is the best the Reds can muster after so many down season unless of course they make it to the WS and looking at it in reality, how likely is that? Bottom line is I just don't see Cincy as that strong of a baseball town anymore to where fans will flock to the park to see a winning team. They will flock to the park to get bobbleheads and dollar hot dogs but most Cincy fans seem to prefer to stay home and follow the game as opposed to going to the game.

I guess I would have rather seen the 200 million invested in 3-4 top notch players as opposed to putting all their eggs in one basket. Votto is a great player but as I said earlier this whole thing just seems to reek of the Griffey JR deal and that just isn't a good thing.

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 10:02 AM
I agree with you. Often we bandy about around here what they union may or may not like, but do we really know that? If, perhaps, Votto's contract has the type of peak or front loading that some have suggested, but the final dollar amount is equal, I can't imagine why the union would object to that. These contracts are reaching a point (it would seem) where some viable creativity will be needed and however it is accomplished should be welcomed by all the parties involved. I think Votto hinted at what a contract may look like late in its life, so nothing would surprise me really. But I think folks assume the union will have objections when we have no way of knowing that, not to mention sometimes it just seems illogical that there would be an objection.

Todd Helton is a perfect example here. He made $20M last year. He makes $9.9M over the next two years combined. All of it was from the same contract (apparently he had two years left on his deal when he signed his extension and they just added those two existing years to the end of the deal).

lollipopcurve
04-03-2012, 10:05 AM
this whole thing just seems to reek of the Griffey JR deal and that just isn't a good thing.

In a sense, yes, bit in another sense, no. Votto is younger, plays a less demanding position, has no injury history and is a fitness freak. Doesn't mean he can't get hurt, but he is FAR less likely to come up lame as often or as catastrophically as Griffey did.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 10:07 AM
Attendance only jumped 7% from 2010 to 2011 after the Reds first winning season in many years. I don't see attendance jumping anytime soon if that is the best the Reds can muster after so many down season unless of course they make it to the WS and looking at it in reality, how likely is that? Bottom line is I just don't see Cincy as that strong of a baseball town anymore to where fans will flock to the park to see a winning team. They will flock to the park to get bobbleheads and dollar hot dogs but most Cincy fans seem to prefer to stay home and follow the game as opposed to going to the game.

I guess I would have rather seen the 200 million invested in 3-4 top notch players as opposed to putting all their eggs in one basket. Votto is a great player but as I said earlier this whole thing just seems to reek of the Griffey JR deal and that just isn't a good thing.

$225MM, over the same 10yr period, for 4 players, adds up to $5,625,000 per player, per year. That's HARDLY going to fetch you "3-4 top notch players". Not to mention that $5.625MM is worth a lot more today than it will be 10 years from now. I bet in 10 years, league minimum will be around $1MM per. You *might* be able to buy 4 total 1-win players for that amount of money.

-Matt

CySeymour
04-03-2012, 10:09 AM
If I'm being fair, I'll note I thought the Angels were silly for the contract they have Pujols, so I should also express concern for the length of the deal the Reds are giving Joey. The dollars spent isn't necessarily the issue. He was going to get paid no matter how long the deal. You almost have to assume that for the last 3 to 4 years of the deal, Votto won't be performing up to the dollars. Which is fine if the franchise gets that and works to surround him during the prime years will championship caliber players.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 10:09 AM
I agree with you. Often we bandy about around here what they union may or may not like, but do we really know that? If, perhaps, Votto's contract has the type of peak or front loading that some have suggested, but the final dollar amount is equal, I can't imagine why the union would object to that. These contracts are reaching a point (it would seem) where some viable creativity will be needed and however it is accomplished should be welcomed by all the parties involved. I think Votto hinted at what a contract may look like late in its life, so nothing would surprise me really. But I think folks assume the union will have objections when we have no way of knowing that, not to mention sometimes it just seems illogical that there would be an objection.

Regardless of how it's loaded, it all comes out in the wash in MLB because all the money's guaranteed. So when we look at the length and the total money, I don't see that our Reds got a discount for the length of the contract or for being the hometown.

I'm glad it's not my money but I don't see the advantage to tying him up for ten more yrs unless that security buys you a discount. The risk is all on the Reds. If he's an MVP and All Star it works out fine but anything else and the Reds are getting ripped off.

I'm just a fan so I'm just going to enjoy having him but I don't think I would have done it were I Castellini

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 10:13 AM
In a sense, yes, bit in another sense, no. Votto is younger, plays a less demanding position, has no injury history and is a fitness freak. Doesn't mean he can't get hurt, but he is FAR less likely to come up lame as often or as catastrophically as Griffey did.

Agree, but comparing the 2 at this point in their careers, Griffey was a sure first ballot HOFer while Votto has just one MVP season under his belt.

Baseballreference compares Votto to the following at age 27.

Similar Batters through 27
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Jeff Bagwell (941)
2.Matt Holliday (936)
3.Lance Berkman (928)
4.Wally Berger (922)
5.Mo Vaughn (919)
6.Adrian Gonzalez (918)
7.Tim Salmon (911)
8.Albert Belle (908)
9.Tony Clark (906)
10.Magglio Ordonez (905)


Looking back at what those players did after the of 27, other than Bagwell none of those players would be worthy of the contract Votto just got.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 10:17 AM
$225MM, over the same 10yr period, for 4 players, adds up to $5,625,000 per player, per year. That's HARDLY going to fetch you "3-4 top notch players". Not to mention that $5.625MM is worth a lot more today than it will be 10 years from now. I bet in 10 years, league minimum will be around $1MM per. You *might* be able to buy 4 total 1-win players for that amount of money.

-Matt

Then make it 225 million over a 5 year period and and get 3 or so top notch players at that rate. I just don't like to see all the eggs in one basket.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 10:19 AM
What in the heck are you guys worried about cost for? I hear the Vottos cereal is flying off the shelves..............cost covered!:)

Tony Cloninger
04-03-2012, 10:26 AM
The whole thing feels as if the Reds went out and bought the brand new Rolls Royce, when the budget only allows for a brand new Buick. And because the Reds opened the bank for Votto, folks like Cueto, Bruce, and Latos are going to expect the same. Can't you imagine a payroll where these four are getting paid a total of about $75-$80 million at the same time? Nor can I.

It's a nice gesture for the fans, but I would be very surprised if Votto is still here in 2020. A no trade clause only means Votto has to OK any trade - and after ten years, that was guaranteed anyway.


Cueto is signed through 2014 with club option for 2015.

Bruce is at least signed through 2016.

Latos is not FA for another 4.

You think the Reds will not develop other pitches or players by then? Or more money will not come in?
This sounds like the same stuff that was being said when they traded those 3 great and soon to be important prospects to CHI for Marshall..... as if no other players could be developed down the road to replace them.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-03-2012, 10:29 AM
I am happy with the extension of Votto and obviously at first glance this seems somewhat of an overpay in the length and amount of the deal.

Question for the people that understand WAR better than me. Doesn’t this contract and subsequent contracts that are affected by this one alter the value of WAR? Say it’s $5M per WAR now (and I’m not sure the exact amount). Doesn’t this contract just inflate that value moving forward? Combine that with the new cable contract that will be negotiated in 2016 and maybe this isn’t the overpay that it seems to be right now.

I have to say, it’s a lot of years, but if you frontload it (as someone mentioned by setting aside a few million per year) it would be easier to take later on. You could also look at it as those crazy NFL contracts, except instead of the guaranteed money up front (signing bonus) we’ll just be frontloading it (setting aside that “bonus”). Votto also seems like the kind of guy that if he’s really struggling during his later years, he’d retire and pass up on some remaining cash coming his way. I think the length of this deal is more symbolic than anything - that barring a catastrophe of epic proportions (or even one of Griffey proportions) that Joey Votto will retire a Red like only a couple homegrown greats before him - Johnny Bench and Barry Larkin.

CySeymour
04-03-2012, 10:31 AM
What in the heck are you guys worried about cost for? I hear the Vottos cereal is flying off the shelves..............cost covered!:)

:beerme:

RedEye
04-03-2012, 10:31 AM
I don't know what people expected for the Reds to sign Votto. Yes, this seems like an overpay in some ways, but maybe we should just relax at this point and be happy that the best Reds player in a generation will remain with the team for his whole career.

CySeymour
04-03-2012, 10:35 AM
Just out of curiosity, how old is Bob Castellini? How safe is it to assume he will still be the Reds owner for the duration of the contract?

Raisor
04-03-2012, 10:41 AM
Before I come up with an opinion on the signing, I think I need to hear from the family member of a minority owner who gave one of our members the real scoop a week or two ago that Joey would never sign with the Reds. I was lied to by someone in the know and demand an accounting! ;)

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 10:41 AM
Regardless of how it's loaded, it all comes out in the wash in MLB because all the money's guaranteed.


It matters how it is loaded because when Votto is giving you the most production, you don't need to surround him with as much talent to win 90 games. When he begins to tail off, you need to surround him with more talent to win 90 games. If he is making the same amount in both years, it is going to really be difficult to surround him with talent in the later stages and keep winning 90 games.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 10:44 AM
The one thing that they'll get out of this deal is a "face of the franchise". They have someone that they can put on billboards, covers of magazines and someone who will likely have significant presence in the Reds record books. He'll likely be a lifetime Red and will be what we think of when we think of the Cincinnati Reds of the 2nd decade of the millenium. It's a jersey you can buy now and know it won't go out of style for long time. In other words, he'll be what Barry Larkin was in the 1990s. I'm guessing this is something that Castellini values.

My problem is that this is not a formula for success for small market baseball teams. World Series winners aren't known for tying up 25% of its payroll on one player. Let's hope Castellini knows something we don't about future revenue sources

bucksfan2
04-03-2012, 10:44 AM
Absolutely love it.

First of all it isn't my money to spend. I want to spend the Reds money all the time but they don't listen so well. I don't really think the dollar value is all that out of whack. At the end of the day it may even be a slight bargain. Here is the thing, with each additional year the contracts get more and more absurd. 10 years from now $20M/year isn't going to seem like its as much money as it does now.

Second off, paying Votto that much money through 38 takes some risk, but the risk is somewhat mitigated by his youth. It isn't like paying ARod or Pujols top dollar into their 40's. He doesn't play a position that is going to break you down as much as OF, C, SS, or 2b. And with the rumors being floated around now, I wouldn't be shocked if the DH was in the NL by the time this deal is done.

Joey Votto is an MVP candidate right now and should be over the next handful of years. You build around guys like that. And with the increased revenue streams of MLB in general I don't think this deal will haunt the Reds finanically like the one to Jr. did.

lollipopcurve
04-03-2012, 10:48 AM
There's something about getting connected to the player -- and the player getting connected to the city and its fanbase -- that allows a contract like this to outshine accounting concerns, I would say. I may be oldschool, but I like to see a player go his whole career in one uniform. It always disappointed me, even though I'm not a Red Sox fan, to see great homegrown player after great homegrown player leave Fenway under a cloud (Garciaparra, Clemens, Vaughn). You want those guys whose numbers you can envision going up alongside the retired numbers of the franchise immortals, arrayed along the concourse forever. It connects player, franchise and fan. It lasts.

I'm thrilled the Reds, and we Reds fans, have another member of the family, if you want to call it that. Votto is what I would call a true blue-collar superstar and an interesting human being besides -- a player and person of substance. Yeah, when a baby's born the parents may fret the finances, but so what. It pales in comparison to the human bond they are forging. And yeah, this is just a baseball team, but we are, after all, people. That may sound maudlin, but I really do see it that way.

RichRed
04-03-2012, 10:50 AM
Forgetting the "value" equations for a minute, this deal is a gift to the fans of the Reds and will ensure that the team has a legacy player for the fans to associate with the team. Consider that when this deal ends in 2023, Frank Robinson will be 87, Pete Rose will be 82, Tony Perez 81, and Johnny Bench will be 75. Heck, Barry Larkin will be 59 and even Jr. will be 54. As those players fade farther away from the consciousness of the Cincy fanbase, I'm thrilled that the city will have such a talented and classy player to call its own.

I think there is a difficult to measure value to the franchise in having such a player. I thnk the "overpayment" that may occur as this deal winds down, may actually be a small price to pay for the value that having such players brings to the franchise and its brand.


Great point, and something I've been thinking about too. I expect that we'll be proud to say we got to watch Joey Votto play his entire career in a Reds uniform.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 10:51 AM
It matters how it is loaded because when Votto is giving you the most production, you don't need to surround him with as much talent to win 90 games. When he begins to tail off, you need to surround him with more talent to win 90 games. If he is making the same amount in both years, it is going to really be difficult to surround him with talent in the later stages and keep winning 90 games.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying but that's so hard to project over 12 yrs. What are payrolls going to look like 12 yrs from now? I doubt very seriously that they'll pay out much more than $22mill a year in the first five yrs of it. They just can't given an $85mill payroll. I don't think they had a heart to heart with him and said "OK, Joey, nothing personal but here are the projections and you're just not going to be worth $20mill when you're 40 so if you want a 10 yr extension, we're only going to offer you $10mill/yr in those last 2-3 yrs". They should have but I'm sure they didn't given the total amount of the package. I think that was a mistake on their part.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 10:53 AM
I can't believe there are so many complaints on the Reds signing one of the greatest players to ever wear a Reds uniform to a LTC. Sure it cost a lot of money. That's what superstars get........long term commitments, and big money.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 10:54 AM
I can't believe there are so many complaints on the Reds signing one of the greatest players to ever wear a Reds uniform to a LTC. Sure it cost a lot of money. That's what superstars get........long term commitments, and big money.

We remember the Griffey contract and how that hamstrung the franchise.

redsmetz
04-03-2012, 11:00 AM
We remember the Griffey contract and how that hamstrung the franchise.

Others have noted this, but one problem with the Griffey deal was that Griffey got hurt and was never the player he had been. Clearly that is always a risk. The other part of the Griffey deal is that, IMO, Lindner (for all his financial acumen) didn't seem to really structure the money well. As I recall, they put up the deferred money in the present years rather than actually taking the deferral, or rather more surprisingly given his background in insurance, never set these up as annuities.

None of this isn't to try to minimize the risk this is for the Reds or any club really. It always will be, but I don't agree that Griffey's tale is necessarily cautionary here.

Always Red
04-03-2012, 11:03 AM
We remember the Griffey contract and how that hamstrung the franchise.

The Griffey contract would have turned out much better had it not been for his hamstring, achilles tendon, knees, etc....

Much of that was just bad luck. I can't blame Junior or the Reds for it.

Karma owes one to the Reds, plus Votto is playing a position at which he can age more gracefully than CF.

Plus, I firmly believe that this current management will continue to strive to win, and put winning players around Votto. The Lindner FO did not do that for the Griffey teams. Fire sales are sure bets to cause fans to lose interest.

Also, not to get political here, but with the Fed printing money as it has been, in 10 years, that 20-25 million a year just might be a good value contract...we're going to have inflation at some point.

westofyou
04-03-2012, 11:11 AM
I can't believe there are so many complaints on the Reds signing one of the greatest players to ever wear a Reds uniform to a LTC. Sure it cost a lot of money. That's what superstars get........long term commitments, and big money.

They also get tons of jack in declining years and that's really the issue many have, the team is just not known for generating tons of cash.

Not to pee on the campfire but at some point this deal will sway other deals and that seed is where trepidation begins to flower

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 11:12 AM
I can't believe there are so many complaints on the Reds signing one of the greatest players to ever wear a Reds uniform to a LTC. Sure it cost a lot of money. That's what superstars get........long term commitments, and big money.

If you asked White Sox fans in 2001 if Magglio Ordonez was worthy of a ten year contract that would make him one of the top paid players in MLB the overwhelming reply likely would have been yes. The same goes with Tiger fans with Tony Clark in 1999. Had those players received those types of contracts at age 27 then those contracts would be now regarded as busts.

Look at the list below. Had each player received a contract similar at the time to what Votto is getting today it would be regarded as a bad thing for the franchise. Other than Bagwell, the other nine players would not have produced the return the team invested in them. 1 for 10 is not a good batting avg.


Similar Batters through 27
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Jeff Bagwell (941)
2.Matt Holliday (936)
3.Lance Berkman (928)
4.Wally Berger (922)
5.Mo Vaughn (919)
6.Adrian Gonzalez (918)
7.Tim Salmon (911)
8.Albert Belle (908)
9.Tony Clark (906)
10.Magglio Ordonez (905)

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 11:13 AM
We remember the Griffey contract and how that hamstrung the franchise.


OK, now I get it. No more superstars...........let's live in the past. They might get hurt. Keep them for a few years while they are developing, then ship them out. That'll help the fan base, and your winning percentage.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:17 AM
Others have noted this, but one problem with the Griffey deal was that Griffey got hurt and was never the player he had been. Clearly that is always a risk. The other part of the Griffey deal is that, IMO, Lindner (for all his financial acumen) didn't seem to really structure the money well. As I recall, they put up the deferred money in the present years rather than actually taking the deferral, or rather more surprisingly given his background in insurance, never set these up as annuities.

None of this isn't to try to minimize the risk this is for the Reds or any club really. It always will be, but I don't agree that Griffey's tale is necessarily cautionary here.

There was never a safer deal than the Griffey one. He was no Eric Davis as far as durability goes. He was already a Hall of Famer yet we still got burned.

For those fans that thought deferred money would make a difference, they were just plum wrong. That's not how they do it. If they hadn't done it that way, we'd be counting his contract today. $13 mill is 13 mill. If I'd known that they were going to limit payroll to $50mill in those days, I'd have advised them against signing Griffey. Whether Lindner used an annuity or not, I don't know

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 11:18 AM
If you asked White Sox fans in 2001 if Magglio Ordonez was worthy of a ten year contract that would make him one of the top paid players in MLB the overwhelming reply likely would have been yes. The same goes with Tiger fans with Tony Clark in 1999. Had those players received those types of contracts at age 27 then those contracts would be now regarded as busts.

Look at the list below. Had each player received a contract similar at the time to what Votto is getting today it would be regarded as a bad thing for the franchise. Other than Bagwell, the other nine players would not have produced the return the team invested in them. 1 for 10 is not a good batting avg.


Similar Batters through 27
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Jeff Bagwell (941)
2.Matt Holliday (936)
3.Lance Berkman (928)
4.Wally Berger (922)
5.Mo Vaughn (919)
6.Adrian Gonzalez (918)
7.Tim Salmon (911)
8.Albert Belle (908)
9.Tony Clark (906)
10.Magglio Ordonez (905)

Let's not judge Adrian Gonzalez yet. Bagwell played 1b, so did Vaughn. Vaughn looked like a beached whale. Berkman has produced over 35 WAR since his age 27 season, and he's got like 3 years to go. Salmon, Belle, Ordonez all played the OF and couldn't age gracefully like Votto will. Clark, sure he fell off a cliff, there's risk. But there's huge reward as well.

Larkin Fan
04-03-2012, 11:19 AM
I love this deal. All contracts involve risk, but if you're going to go out on a limb and sign a player to a deal like this, Joey Votto is the guy you sign. It's great to be able to say that the Reds now have one of the best players in the game locked up long term.

As I've said before, Votto is the guy you build a team around. And that's exactly what the Reds are doing. The moves that have been made this off-season, as well as this contract, have put the Reds in a position to be contenders. And I have little doubt that the Reds will continue to make the appropriate moves throughout the course of this contract to ensure that they're putting a quality team on the field.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 11:20 AM
There was never a safer deal than the Griffey one. He was no Eric Davis as far as durability goes. He was already a Hall of Famer yet we still got burned.

For those fans that thought deferred money would make a difference, they were just plum wrong. That's not how they do it. If they hadn't done it that way, we'd be counting his contract today. $13 mill is 13 mill. If I'd known that they were going to limit payroll to $50mill in those days, I'd have advised them against signing Griffey. Whether Lindner used an annuity or not, I don't know

You can't live in the past. Griffey was much more of an injury risk that Votto is. A lot more.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 11:21 AM
OK, now I get it. No more superstars...........let's live in the past. They might get hurt. Keep them for a few years while they are developing, then ship them out. That'll help the fan base, and your winning percentage.

It works pretty well for the Twins.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:22 AM
OK, now I get it. No more superstars...........let's live in the past. They might get hurt. Keep them for a few years while they are developing, then ship them out. That'll help the fan base, and your winning percentage.

Having a superstar didn't help the winning percentage during the Griffey yrs. Your attitude shows that you don't understand the reality of the plight of small markets in MLB. You can stick your head in the sand but it's not going to make it go away. Teams like our Cin Reds are at a huge disadvantage moneywise. The Cubs and Cardinals can afford two Joey Vottos over and above our payrolls. That's the starting point. Knowing this the Reds have to try to compete anyway.

In hindsight the best way for the Reds to compete in the yr 2000 and beyond was to hold onto Mike Cameron and win like they did in 1999.

PuffyPig
04-03-2012, 11:23 AM
If you asked White Sox fans in 2001 if Magglio Ordonez was worthy of a ten year contract that would make him one of the top paid players in MLB the overwhelming reply likely would have been yes. The same goes with Tiger fans with Tony Clark in 1999. Had those players received those types of contracts at age 27 then those contracts would be now regarded as busts.

Look at the list below. Had each player received a contract similar at the time to what Votto is getting today it would be regarded as a bad thing for the franchise. Other than Bagwell, the other nine players would not have produced the return the team invested in them. 1 for 10 is not a good batting avg.


Similar Batters through 27
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Jeff Bagwell (941)
2.Matt Holliday (936)
3.Lance Berkman (928)
4.Wally Berger (922)
5.Mo Vaughn (919)
6.Adrian Gonzalez (918)
7.Tim Salmon (911)
8.Albert Belle (908)
9.Tony Clark (906)
10.Magglio Ordonez (905)


Why would Adrian Gonzalez be a bad contract? Even Holliday continues to produce.

membengal
04-03-2012, 11:25 AM
It works pretty well for the Twins.

The twin spent $174 million on mauer over 8 years just two years ago.

Dan
04-03-2012, 11:27 AM
Agree, but comparing the 2 at this point in their careers, Griffey was a sure first ballot HOFer while Votto has just one MVP season under his belt.

Baseballreference compares Votto to the following at age 27.

Similar Batters through 27
View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars
1.Jeff Bagwell (941)
2.Matt Holliday (936)
3.Lance Berkman (928)
4.Wally Berger (922)
5.Mo Vaughn (919)
6.Adrian Gonzalez (918)
7.Tim Salmon (911)
8.Albert Belle (908)
9.Tony Clark (906)
10.Magglio Ordonez (905)


Looking back at what those players did after the of 27, other than Bagwell none of those players would be worthy of the contract Votto just got.

A couple things. Projecting the production of one player based on another player's production is folly. If it worked out that way, then Kal Daniels would have had a better career than Barry Bonds since they were both putting up similar numbers at a similar age.

Second, most of those players are either too young, or (except Tony Clark) were derailed by injuries, not unproductiveness. Injury risk is a chance you take no matter what the contract (e.g. Madsen), so you can't let that be a factor in your decision making.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 11:29 AM
Why would Adrian Gonzalez be a bad contract? Even Holliday continues to produce.

Ok, I will give you Gonzales but Holliday's performance to date IMO would not be worthy of a contract similar to what Votto signed.

PuffyPig
04-03-2012, 11:32 AM
Ok, I will give you Gonzales but Holliday's performance to date IMO would not be worthy of a contract similar to what Votto signed.


But Holliday has lived up to the contract he has signed. He didn't get a Votto type contract because he didn't deserve it.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 11:36 AM
But Holliday has lived up to the contract he has signed. He didn't get a Votto type contract because he didn't deserve it.

But according to baseballreference.com, he and Votto at age 27 were comparable players and thus was deserving of the contract Votto just signed.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:36 AM
It works pretty well for the Twins.

How do you figure? In 2010 Justin Morneau made $15mill and Joe Mauer made $12.5mill. Their team payroll was $97.5 mill. Last year's 99 loss team had a payroll of $113 mill and paid Mauer $23 mill. Due to the success of their new stadium, Minn is no longer small market

Hoosier Red
04-03-2012, 11:38 AM
There was never a safer deal than the Griffey one. He was no Eric Davis as far as durability goes. He was already a Hall of Famer yet we still got burned.

For those fans that thought deferred money would make a difference, they were just plum wrong. That's not how they do it. If they hadn't done it that way, we'd be counting his contract today. $13 mill is 13 mill. If I'd known that they were going to limit payroll to $50mill in those days, I'd have advised them against signing Griffey. Whether Lindner used an annuity or not, I don't know

I think one big difference is obviously 1b is much safer than CF.
In Griffey's case(and no one thought of it then) but it was almost like a running back who has "proven to be durable" which means he's about to miss a season. Proven durability means he's already put a lot of tread on the tires, in Griffey's case it was about 160 games/season for 3 consecutive seasons.

In a similar vein, I almost wouldn't want to trade for a young pitcher who had pitched 5 or 6 consecutive seasons without injury. That means they've put a lot of wear on the arms that perhaps someone who had TJ surgery in year 3 didn't.

The Operator
04-03-2012, 11:38 AM
Having a superstar didn't help the winning percentage during the Griffey yrs.No, but The Reds also didn't have Cueto, Latos, etc. in the rotation in those years. It was more along the lines of Elmer Dessens, Joey Hamilton, Osvaldo Fernandez, Rob Bell, Brandon Claussen, Jimmy Anderson, and I better stop before I have a scary, vivid flashback.

I may be wrong but I thought I remember reading that Griffey never really took care of his body a whole lot early on on his career. Combine that with playing on Astroturf at a VERY demanding position, and there you go.

Votto is a health nut who plays a much less demanding position. And I have a much better feeling about Bob Castellini's ability and drive to put a winning team around Votto than Lindner did for Griffey. Lindner didn't give rat's posterior. Bob does.

George Anderson
04-03-2012, 11:39 AM
How do you figure? In 2010 Justin Morneau made $15mill and Joe Mauer made $12.5mill. Their team payroll was $97.5 mill. Last year's 99 loss team had a payroll of $113 mill and paid Mauer $23 mill. Due to the success of their new stadium, Minn is no longer small market

I should have said it worked well for the Twins when they were a small market. They were notorious for developing top notch players and letting them go once they were about to get big contracts but still were always able to contend.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:40 AM
I love this deal. All contracts involve risk, but if you're going to go out on a limb and sign a player to a deal like this, Joey Votto is the guy you sign. It's great to be able to say that the Reds now have one of the best players in the game locked up long term.

As I've said before, Votto is the guy you build a team around. And that's exactly what the Reds are doing. The moves that have been made this off-season, as well as this contract, have put the Reds in a position to be contenders. And I have little doubt that the Reds will continue to make the appropriate moves throughout the course of this contract to ensure that they're putting a quality team on the field.

That's fine but don't complain when you see Brandon Phillips leaving for greener pastures next yr and don't expect the Reds to bid on any significant FAs for a long time

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:41 AM
I should have said it worked well for the Twins when they were a small market. They were notorious for developing top notch players and letting them go once they were about to get big contracts but still were always able to contend.

I misunderstood your point. I agree 100%:thumbup:

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:43 AM
No, but The Reds also didn't have Cueto, Latos, etc. in the rotation in those years. It was more along the lines of Elmer Dessens, Joey Hamilton, Osvaldo Fernandez, Rob Bell, Brandon Claussen, Jimmy Anderson, and I better stop before I have a scary, vivid flashback.

I may be wrong but I thought I remember reading that Griffey never really took care of his body a whole lot early on on his career. Combine that with playing on Astroturf at a VERY demanding position, and there you go.

Votto is a health nut who plays a much less demanding position. And I have a much better feeling about Bob Castellini's ability and drive to put a winning team around Votto than Lindner did for Griffey. Lindner didn't give rat's posterior. Bob does.

I agree with all that and your recollection on Griffey is correct. Even if Joey stays relatively healthy, it does take a big chunk out of the money available to keep players like Phillips or acquire players like Madson

Larkin Fan
04-03-2012, 11:44 AM
That's fine but don't complain when you see Brandon Phillips leaving for greener pastures next yr and don't expect the Reds to bid on any significant FAs for a long time

As if I don't understand the implications for Phillips....

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 11:45 AM
As if I don't understand the implications for Phillips....

:thumbup:

PuffyPig
04-03-2012, 11:55 AM
But according to baseballreference.com, he and Votto at age 27 were comparable players and thus was deserving of the contract Votto just signed.


They were somewhat comparable players at age 27.

They weren't the same.

In comparing players, Baseball Reference doesn't consider things like the fact that Holliday feasted on Corrs field his whole life. Nor do they consider that he is, like all past, present and future Cards players, a putz.

You've made a quantum leap in saying that a player's 10 most comparable players deserve the same contract.

Hoosier Red
04-03-2012, 11:58 AM
I agree with all that and your recollection on Griffey is correct. Even if Joey stays relatively healthy, it does take a big chunk out of the money available to keep players like Phillips or acquire players like Madson

1) There wasn't a pipeline in the minor leagues to supply talent to fill in around the big salaries. It's not necessarily a deathknell to have 75% of your payroll tied up into 5-6 guys, but you have to know you can get adequate production from the minimal salary guys. The Reds minor leagues were producing Brandon Larsen and Brandon Claussen before, and are producing much more talented players now.
I'm not sure I'd suggest that strategy but just saying it's not impossible

2) We don't know the denominator. $20 million out of a $90 million payroll may in fact be more percentage wise than $10 million out of a $50 million payroll, but it leaves more in absolute dollars to fill out the rest of the roster.

The Voice of IH
04-03-2012, 11:58 AM
Joey Votto will be a Red until I am 32 years old. Geez, I'm going to be ancient!

Hoosier Red
04-03-2012, 11:59 AM
Joey Votto will be a Red until I am 32 years old. Geez, I'm going to be ancient!

Listen here sonny. We old timers and aspiring old timers are not amused.;)

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 12:00 PM
But according to baseballreference.com, he and Votto at age 27 were comparable players and thus was deserving of the contract Votto just signed.

At the time Holliday signed that contract, it was a large baseball contract. It still is in many respects but the Cards paying Holliday 17 million per year now looks like a deal with all the other crazy contracts in baseball. Certainly Holliday's contract looks like a steal compared to the Werth and Crawford deals.



I haven't read all of the threads but how do you all think this deal for Votto will effect the clubs ability to put a winning product on the field going forward? Will it drastically limit the Reds ability to spend money? Will ticket prices increase?

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 12:04 PM
In comparing players, Baseball Reference doesn't consider things like the fact that Holliday feasted on Corrs field his whole life.

It's not like Great American Ballpark is pitcher friendly either. Coors might be more of a hitters park but GAB isn't that far behind.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 12:06 PM
It's not like Great American Ballpark is pitcher friendly either. Coors might be more of a hitters park but GAB isn't that far behind.

So what? GABP is where Joey is projected to play for the next 12 yrs so shouldn't his numbers there be used to project his production?

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 12:08 PM
So what? GABP is where Joey is projected to play for the next 12 yrs so shouldn't his numbers there be used to project his production?

Never said that. I was more pointing to that Matt Holliday shouldn't be punished compared to Joey Votto when talking about equal production because they both played in hitter friendly parks. It's almost a moot point to take "points" away from Holliday because of the Coors factor. Holliday has also produced well in Busch Stadium, which is a pitcher friendly park. He is just a heck of a player anyway you cut it.

oneupper
04-03-2012, 12:15 PM
Also, not to get political here, but with the Fed printing money as it has been, in 10 years, that 20-25 million a year just might be a good value contract...we're going to have inflation at some point.

Inflation is what could save this contract. Joey is a fantastic player, but it IS a lot of money.
Frankly, I never thought he'd sign. But then again, I never thought management would make an offer of that magnitude.

Look forward to seeing Votto as a RED. Fingers crossed he won't be alone out there.

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 12:16 PM
Never said that. I was more pointing to that Matt Holliday shouldn't be punished compared to Joey Votto when talking about equal production because they both played in hitter friendly parks. It's almost a moot point to take "points" away from Holliday because of the Coors factor. Holliday has also produced well in Busch Stadium, which is a pitcher friendly park. He is just a heck of a player anyway you cut it.

If you must pimp your St Louis Cardinal players in a RZ thread on Joey Votto then so be it but I don't think that's necessary.

Caveman Techie
04-03-2012, 12:17 PM
I also remember the Griffey contract. As others have pointed out, Votto plays a much less demanding position than Griffey did. The other big key difference's are:

Ownership, with Griffey the Reds signed a huge contract for a premiere player then cried poor and didn't get anyone else to surround him with (particularly in the pitching department). The Reds crying poor did alot to turn the fanbase against Griffey, which in turn turned Griffey in to a malcontent on the team IMO. I don't think the new ownership will make that same mistake. I don't expect them to outspend the Yankees or anything, but I also don't expect every comment to come out of the front office to be about how we just can't afford to make any moves.

Player Development, in the Griffey era the Reds player development department had been decimated by Marge Schott and Lindner was not going to spend any money to fix it. Now day's the Reds have a player development department that has been pumping out some of the best young talent in MLB. Not only can that talent be used to play for the Reds at the MLB level (ala Stubbs, Bruce, Votto, Mesoraco) but they can also be used as currency to bring in other talent (ala the Latos and Marshall trades).

_Sir_Charles_
04-03-2012, 12:17 PM
Attendance only jumped 7% from 2010 to 2011 after the Reds first winning season in many years. I don't see attendance jumping anytime soon if that is the best the Reds can muster after so many down season unless of course they make it to the WS and looking at it in reality, how likely is that? Bottom line is I just don't see Cincy as that strong of a baseball town anymore to where fans will flock to the park to see a winning team. They will flock to the park to get bobbleheads and dollar hot dogs but most Cincy fans seem to prefer to stay home and follow the game as opposed to going to the game.

I guess I would have rather seen the 200 million invested in 3-4 top notch players as opposed to putting all their eggs in one basket. Votto is a great player but as I said earlier this whole thing just seems to reek of the Griffey JR deal and that just isn't a good thing.

Which is why I said REPEATEDLY putting a contender on the field. One year and done isn't going to improve attendance. 5-10 years of contention WILL.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 12:20 PM
Source: None of money in Votto's deal with #Reds is deferred. Contract is back-loaded.

Per Ken Rosenthal on Twitter

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 12:20 PM
If you must pimp your St Louis Cardinal players in a RZ thread on Joey Votto then so be it but I don't think that's necessary.

If the conversation has evolved to comparing Holliday's production and Votto's conversation, it's a valid argument to bring up. Originally when I saw the thread this morning, I was going to ask the people in the Reds Zone how this effects the Reds viability going forward. Then I saw people trying to compare Holliday and Votto. Now if you want to tell me how I should comment on something or what I should say, by all means send me a PM.

Dan
04-03-2012, 12:24 PM
Joey Votto will be a Red until I am 32 years old. Geez, I'm going to be ancient!

If that's the case, then I've been on RZ, and it's predecessor Fastball, since you were in diapers. :eek:

RichRed
04-03-2012, 12:26 PM
You know who doens't like this deal? Every small to mid-market owner who's been able to use the "we can't afford it" line for years. I can hear their fans now: "If the Reds can do it, why can't we?"

There's plenty of risk to the deal to be sure, but I love it. I love that one of the best players in baseball will be wearing a Reds uniform for the next decade, and I love the message it sends to the rest of the league. Very exciting time to be a Reds fan. I don't think this version of the Reds will be like the Lindner-led team; they will find a way to surround Votto with quality players.

This is not your father's Oldsmobile.

_Sir_Charles_
04-03-2012, 12:30 PM
If you must pimp your St Louis Cardinal players in a RZ thread on Joey Votto then so be it but I don't think that's necessary.

He didn't bring up Holiday.

_Sir_Charles_
04-03-2012, 12:33 PM
I'll never understand why they insist on back-loading contracts. You get the better production earlier in the contract most often. I'd front-load them. Plus, when you get to the end of the contract and the player's production is tailing off...he's making less per year and is more easily tradable. I'll just never get that mindset.

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 12:35 PM
Do the Reds increase their ticket prices because of this? I know the Reds have one of the lowest average cost for the average family per game. Does this contract extension effect that?

cincrazy
04-03-2012, 12:37 PM
If the conversation has evolved to comparing Holliday's production and Votto's conversation, it's a valid argument to bring up. Originally when I saw the thread this morning, I was going to ask the people in the Reds Zone how this effects the Reds viability going forward. Then I saw people trying to compare Holliday and Votto. Now if you want to tell me how I should comment on something or what I should say, by all means send me a PM.

I think that with the Reds CURRENT budge, it'd be tough to make this deal work. But from what I've seen, we seem to have backloaded the deal pretty heavily, which seems to indicate to me the Reds are expecting a future increase in revenue. In short, I think Bob C. is a great owner, and I think through the life of Votto's contract, he's going to do his absolute best to put a winning team on the field. Carl Lindner didn't care about winning titles. Castellini does.

Kc61
04-03-2012, 12:45 PM
I'll never understand why they insist on back-loading contracts. You get the better production earlier in the contract most often. I'd front-load them. Plus, when you get to the end of the contract and the player's production is tailing off...he's making less per year and is more easily tradable. I'll just never get that mindset.

The reason for back loading is the expectation that later in the contract the team will have more revenue and will be able to afford a higher overall payroll.

I think this Votto deal is all about television contracts, attendance, marketing. I think Castellini wants an anchor player to sell when he negotiates the next TV deal. I also think he feels that it will create buzz that will get fans in the stadium and create more interest in the team.

The Reds aren't in the same position as the Cards. The Cards already have the attendance and probably the TV revenue. The public has already bought into the Cards and I'm sure the team's revenue reflects that. Signing Pujols would help baseball-wise, but I think the Cards have already succeeded with the public.

Castellini is assuming that in the later years of Votto's contract the revenues will be higher, the payroll will be higher. He may also be assuming that the average superstar salary will be higher so that Votto's salary won't be out of line.

Cedric
04-03-2012, 12:53 PM
Joey will always be linked with 12 years and 252.5 million. If ever there was a player that could handle that mental burden it's him. I bet he works even harder now to prove to everyone why it's a great deal for the Reds.

PuffyPig
04-03-2012, 12:55 PM
It's not like Great American Ballpark is pitcher friendly either. Coors might be more of a hitters park but GAB isn't that far behind.


At the time Holliday put up his numbers, Coors was an absolute launching pad. It's less so now.

GABP is a HR park, but it's not otherwise a hitter's park. It stiffles doubles for example.

PuffyPig
04-03-2012, 12:57 PM
I'll never understand why they insist on back-loading contracts. You get the better production earlier in the contract most often. I'd front-load them. Plus, when you get to the end of the contract and the player's production is tailing off...he's making less per year and is more easily tradable. I'll just never get that mindset.

You are thinking "baseball" instead of "business".

A dollar paid tomorrow is always cheaper than a dollar paid today.

RedsBaron
04-03-2012, 01:26 PM
If the conversation has evolved to comparing Holliday's production and Votto's conversation, it's a valid argument to bring up. Originally when I saw the thread this morning, I was going to ask the people in the Reds Zone how this effects the Reds viability going forward. Then I saw people trying to compare Holliday and Votto. Now if you want to tell me how I should comment on something or what I should say, by all means send me a PM.

I thought your comments about Votto and Holliday were fine.

Hoosier Red
04-03-2012, 01:28 PM
True, but I'd think similarly a dollar paid today is more valuable than a dollar paid tomorrow. I'd wonder if in some cases it's worthwhile to the player to sign a less expensive deal but get more money paid upfront. Of course if you do it too often you get the NFL system where you pay a large signing bonus and in 3 years have a player complaining that he's barely playing for the minimum.

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 01:42 PM
At the time Holliday put up his numbers, Coors was an absolute launching pad. It's less so now.

GABP is a HR park, but it's not otherwise a hitter's park. It stiffles doubles for example.

In 2007, the year Holliday should have probably won the MVP, while his splits were drastically different away from Coors, he was still a very good player. He hit .301, OBP .374, .485, .860 OPS. Yes, Coors did inflate his numbers but he was still a heck of a player. He has also given the Cardinals MVP type numbers while playing in a pitcher friendly park. I would even go so far to say that only Ryan Braun is a better left fielder in today's game.

klw
04-03-2012, 01:45 PM
Has a press conference been announced? Are we thinking 3:30 before the activities related to the game?

REDREAD
04-03-2012, 01:53 PM
I am thrilled that Votto will be staying in Cincinnati, but boy oh boy is this a risky deal for the Reds. I don't really see the logic in signing him to this top-dollar extension two full years before his current contract expires.

Sure, it's a risk, but if the Reds didn't get him signed now, he probably tests free agency. Look at all the recent big bat FAs.. Pujols, Fielder, etc.
They gave their club a window to sign them.. the club couldn't get it done.
The last year at their respective clubs, they already made their mind up to get the biggest contract for themselves. Can't say that I blame them.

So Votto was probably a lot more agreeable to signing now than he would be if the Reds waited until the 11th hour.

I agree, this deal is a risk.. All long term deals are a risk.
However, there's not that many MVP level players around.
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if the Reds ended up overpaying by 5 million/year? Not really.. that's not going to make or break the club.

Votto is pretty much irreplacable, especially on a team like the Reds.
We can all say "invest in scouting", but many years, there's no future MVP level players in the draft period.

I am thrilled that Joey has been extended. Great work Walt..
Even if this contract blows up in our face at the end, I'm glad they did it.
I'd rather them take a risk to be champs then to be too cautious/helpless.

REDREAD
04-03-2012, 02:06 PM
It matters how it is loaded because when Votto is giving you the most production, you don't need to surround him with as much talent to win 90 games. When he begins to tail off, you need to surround him with more talent to win 90 games. If he is making the same amount in both years, it is going to really be difficult to surround him with talent in the later stages and keep winning 90 games.

Doug, I think you are making too big of a deal over this.
As others have said, if Cast wants to set aside 10 million this year to pay Votto later, he is free to do so.
Really, front loading does not make that much sense, IMO. All it does is reduce flexiblity.

Backloading is actually better. The team is talented now. They need to add as much talent as possible, not just enough to hit 90 wins (because you never know how the season will play out).

The odds that the Reds will be a WS contender in 5 years is less than it is now.. that's just the nature of the game. It really has nothing to do with the decision on Votto or not..

Reds Fanatic
04-03-2012, 02:11 PM
Has a press conference been announced? Are we thinking 3:30 before the activities related to the game?

The Reds have not announced anything official yet but from John Fay's twitter one of Votto's representatives said there would be press conference about the extension on Wednesday

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 02:22 PM
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture4-4.png

In case anyone is wondering why it makes more sense to backload a contract instead of frontload, I created a quick excel chart to show the difference. Figured for 3.24% inflation, which is the average from 1908-2012. Over the course of Votto's contract, with the Present Value of the dollar, the Reds will save right around $9MM. The AAV of Votto's contract, in today's dollars, is nearly exactly what he will be getting paid in 2013 ($17MM). If the contract is backloaded even more than what I am guesstimating, the savings will be even more substantial.

That said, we shouldn't be afraid of the dollar figure of his contract, IMO. Players like Votto do not come around often, and the Reds were smart to lock him up for the long-term.

-Matt

Hoosier Red
04-03-2012, 02:35 PM
Actually Matt, I think that goes to prove Sir Charles point even more. By looking at the PV of the front loaded contract it is indeed $1 million more over the life of the contract/year, which is nothing to sneeze at obviously. But the opportunity to trade the last few years from the contract is significantly improved in a front loaded vs back loaded contract, so wouldn't that have to be considered? If it increased the chances of trading Votto the last two years(if you wanted) by say 50%, then it would be roughly equal to the backloaded value.


Not that the Reds should be looking at trade scenarios 10 years ahead, but I do hope they are judicious and look to apply additional payments as funds are available so that they may be able to apply them when the contract becomes more expensive.

Patrick Bateman
04-03-2012, 02:44 PM
Actually Matt, I think that goes to prove Sir Charles point even more. By looking at the PV of the front loaded contract it is indeed $1 million more over the life of the contract/year, which is nothing to sneeze at obviously. But the opportunity to trade the last few years from the contract is significantly improved in a front loaded vs back loaded contract, so wouldn't that have to be considered? If it increased the chances of trading Votto the last two years(if you wanted) by say 50%, then it would be roughly equal to the backloaded value.


Not that the Reds should be looking at trade scenarios 10 years ahead, but I do hope they are judicious and look to apply additional payments as funds are available so that they may be able to apply them when the contract becomes more expensive.

You can always eat salary. If the Reds save the savings for future seasons, they could trade him, eat the difference in salary between the 2 years and come out with more money.

IMO, there is no advantage to frontloading the deal.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 02:47 PM
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture5-3.png

Well, true, but if the deal is even MORE backloaded, the savings just continue to rise. Everything is cheaper now than it will be in 2023. Let alone the potential new negotiation of a TV/Radio deal that should happen in 2016 and the increase in revenue from those outlets.

Hoosier Red
04-03-2012, 02:47 PM
You can always eat salary. If the Reds save the savings for future seasons, they could trade him, eat the difference in salary between the 2 years and come out with more money.

IMO, there is no advantage to frontloading the deal.

That's a fair point. I agree with the overall analysis that the contract won't be overly burdensome even in a backloaded deal.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 02:54 PM
Having a superstar didn't help the winning percentage during the Griffey yrs. Your attitude shows that you don't understand the reality of the plight of small markets in MLB. You can stick your head in the sand but it's not going to make it go away. Teams like our Cin Reds are at a huge disadvantage moneywise. The Cubs and Cardinals can afford two Joey Vottos over and above our payrolls. That's the starting point. Knowing this the Reds have to try to compete anyway.

In hindsight the best way for the Reds to compete in the yr 2000 and beyond was to hold onto Mike Cameron and win like they did in 1999.

Attitudes like yours make small market teams. The Reds obviously don't have that mentality. I'm glad they don't. 2 years ago, Miami was a small market mentality. So was Detroit. So were the Nats. The Reds have stepped up. The fans should stop the mentality that the year is 2001. For all we know, ownership is dipping into their own pockets. Castellini is rich, very rich. Let him spend it how he wants to. If there is any player that you spend money on like this, it's a Votto type player. Heck, dropping Arroyo off the payroll in 2 years covers 1/2 the value of Votto's salary alone. I'll take that.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:00 PM
Another interesting look at this, also in Present Value:
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture6-3.png

If you figure Joey has 3 years left of 6+ WAR, and then begins steadily dropping, ending up as a "league average" player, only the last 2 years will the Reds be paying considerably higher than the average $ per WAR at $4.5MM.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 03:04 PM
Another interesting look at this, also in Present Value:
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture6-3.png

If you figure Joey has 3 years left of 6+ WAR, and then begins steadily dropping, ending up as a "league average" player, only the last 2 years will the Reds be paying considerably higher than the average $ per WAR at $4.5MM.

Great point. What was WAR worth 12 years ago?

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2012, 03:04 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/7769091/the-cincinnati-reds-had-make-decision-joey-votto-mlb

Buster Olney posted an Insider article that has some pretty interesting quotes from some NL and AL evalutators and the reactions are mixed.

I can't post the whole thing because it's paid content, but one quote I'll post from Olney that I thought was interesting that dealt with what the Reds reasonably could have expected if they had traded Votto:


If the Reds had traded Votto during the winter, two executives said on Monday, they could have reasonably expected to get a package of four to five young players -- two Grade A prospects, a second-tier prospect and two lesser prospects.

I know hindsight and hypotheticals are difficult to deal with, and I generally don't like dealing in them, but this one is interesting. If you assume the Latos trade doesn't happen and the Reds trade Votto, keep Alonso and use Grandal and other prospects as trade bait, what do you think happens?

The Reds would have more money to spend. Maybe they get some Latos type pitchers in the deal for Votto. Grandal and some of the other prospects could still fetch an interesting player or 2. Alonso, while no lock, probably could have come within a few wins of Votto's production. Hmm...

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:05 PM
Hmm...not sure, to be honest in re: 2000 $/WAR.

Kc61
04-03-2012, 03:07 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/7769091/the-cincinnati-reds-had-make-decision-joey-votto-mlb



I know hindsight and hypotheticals are difficult to deal with, and I generally don't like dealing in them, but this one is interesting. If you assume the Latos trade doesn't happen and the Reds trade Votto, keep Alonso and use Grandal and other prospects as trade bait, what do you think happens?

The Reds would have more money to spend. Maybe they get some Latos type pitchers in the deal for Votto. Grandal and some of the other prospects could still fetch an interesting player or 2. Alonso, while no lock, probably could have come within a few wins of Votto's production. Hmm...

Keep in mind -- the Reds not only have Votto now. They have Latos.

If they keep all the prospects and trade for more, they are trying to DEVELOP a Votto and a Latos. Not easy.

traderumor
04-03-2012, 03:11 PM
We remember the Griffey contract and how that hamstrung the franchise.While this is the only comparable contract in Reds history, the comparison is about as relevant as the Frank Robinson trade. Landmark deals, but neither land in a comparable context to this deal.

The only point of comparison is length of contract. The dollars are dramatically different, the era is different, the ownership and management is different, the core of the team is different, the balance of the team is different, the farm system is different, the style of play is different, the players play different positions, the new ballpark is almost 10 years old...in fact, as I run down all those differences, I notice that in each of these potential items of comparison, the franchise is so much more healthy now than when the Griffey deal was done.

With the benefit of hindsight, there were a lot of weaknesses in the organization that were present and Griffey's injuries merely exposed.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:12 PM
Backloaded $ per WAR = $3,613,658.00
Frontloaded $ per WAR = $3,836,288.00

Again, in Present Value.

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2012, 03:21 PM
Keep in mind -- the Reds not only have Votto now. They have Latos.

If they keep all the prospects and trade for more, they are trying to DEVELOP a Votto and a Latos. Not easy.

I'm of the belief that Alonso can step in now. I do not think he will be Joey Votto (never will be), but I think he can be a net positive for the team immediately. If you get 2 stud prospects and a B prospect...that's a lot. What if 1 of the prospects steps in his first year and performs like Latos or Pineda did in his first season in the majors? And you also have Grandal to trade and other prospects as well that could garner a good player.

This of course does not factor in all the money saved as well, that could be used in free agency or elsewhere.

bucksfan2
04-03-2012, 03:25 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/7769091/the-cincinnati-reds-had-make-decision-joey-votto-mlb

Buster Olney posted an Insider article that has some pretty interesting quotes from some NL and AL evalutators and the reactions are mixed.

I can't post the whole thing because it's paid content, but one quote I'll post from Olney that I thought was interesting that dealt with what the Reds reasonably could have expected if they had traded Votto:


If the Reds had traded Votto during the winter, two executives said on Monday, they could have reasonably expected to get a package of four to five young players -- two Grade A prospects, a second-tier prospect and two lesser prospects.

I know hindsight and hypotheticals are difficult to deal with, and I generally don't like dealing in them, but this one is interesting. If you assume the Latos trade doesn't happen and the Reds trade Votto, keep Alonso and use Grandal and other prospects as trade bait, what do you think happens?

The Reds would have more money to spend. Maybe they get some Latos type pitchers in the deal for Votto. Grandal and some of the other prospects could still fetch an interesting player or 2. Alonso, while no lock, probably could have come within a few wins of Votto's production. Hmm...

I get the feeling that a lot of the national writers are more or less shocked by the extension. It doesn't fit into their mindset of the way things should be done. Its ok for the Tigers to shell out the money for Prince, have three players for two positions and play one player out of position, but it isn't ok for the Reds.

I also get the feeling that a lot of scout types would much rather have two potential "what if's" than one sure thing. The thing is if you pull a move like trading a star for a bunch of prospects, you better hit. If you don't you can just change your name to Pittsburgh Pirates.

Also if the Reds were able to flip Alonso and Grandal for Latos shouldn't the FO be confident that they can restock the farm system with the same caliber players?

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 03:28 PM
Attitudes like yours make small market teams. The Reds obviously don't have that mentality. I'm glad they don't. 2 years ago, Miami was a small market mentality. So was Detroit. So were the Nats. The Reds have stepped up. The fans should stop the mentality that the year is 2001. For all we know, ownership is dipping into their own pockets. Castellini is rich, very rich. Let him spend it how he wants to. If there is any player that you spend money on like this, it's a Votto type player. Heck, dropping Arroyo off the payroll in 2 years covers 1/2 the value of Votto's salary alone. I'll take that.

In 2010 the Tigers had a $133 mill payroll. They've been over $100mill since 2008

traderumor
04-03-2012, 03:30 PM
I'm of the belief that Alonso can step in now. I do not think he will be Joey Votto (never will be), but I think he can be a net positive for the team immediately. If you get 2 stud prospects and a B prospect...that's a lot. 1 if 1 of the prospects steps in his first year and performs like Latos or Pineda did in his first season in the majors? And you also have Grandal to trade and other prospects as well that could garner a good player.

This of course does not factor in all the money saved as well, that could be used in free agency or elsewhere.The "established stars for multiple prospects" game plan, where has that ever resulted in a consistent winner? Its been tried repeatedly, but I'm having a hard time remembering even one good example of where that has worked out well, even in the short term (3-4 years).

Maybe you can run this through some simulator and let us know how the alternative universe turned out. Of course, with the generic descriptions of the prospects and the unknown quantity of Alonso and Grandal, it would certainly be challenging to develop the "trade Votto, save money" scenario. The Reds just paid, in part, for a little more certainty than the "prospects are all maximum return on investment" scenario you seem to be painting.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 03:32 PM
In 2010 the Tigers had a $133 mill payroll. They've been over $100mill since 2008

You're missing the point. Teams that were once so called small teams lose that mentality and start playing like big boys. Or they become the pirates or royals. Or they can finish in last for 10 years, and possibly become the rays, with no fans.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Also if the Reds were able to flip Alonso and Grandal for Latos shouldn't the FO be confident that they can restock the farm system with the same caliber players?

The Reds aren't likely to be drafting that highly any time soon, so it might be a bad idea to be confident that you can keep doing that. But the key to any team who isn't in the top 5 in payroll is to keep the farm producing regular players so you don't have to pay 300-400% to bring in a vet to do the same job.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:43 PM
^^True, but 1st Rd picks aren't always the ones that pan out. Votto was a 2nd rounder, and a lot of other outstanding players have come in lower rounds. Reds have a good scouting/development system (again, a lot better than the Schott/Lindner days), so we should still be able to get highly-touted prospects.

-Matt

dougdirt
04-03-2012, 03:46 PM
^^True, but 1st Rd picks aren't always the ones that pan out. Votto was a 2nd rounder, and a lot of other outstanding players have come in lower rounds. Reds have a good scouting/development system (again, a lot better than the Schott/Lindner days), so we should still be able to get highly-touted prospects.

-Matt

While I agree we have the team in place to keep picking and developing good guys, most elite prospects are either international bonus babies or first round draft picks. There are always exceptions to the rule.... but think of the best players in baseball. Most of them fit into the description I just laid out.

With that said, the Reds haven't missed on a first round pick in a long time. Ryan Wagner was the last 'miss' and they still got MLB production from him, albeit for a short time.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:48 PM
True.

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2012, 03:50 PM
I get the feeling that a lot of the national writers are more or less shocked by the extension. It doesn't fit into their mindset of the way things should be done. Its ok for the Tigers to shell out the money for Prince, have three players for two positions and play one player out of position, but it isn't ok for the Reds.

I also get the feeling that a lot of scout types would much rather have two potential "what if's" than one sure thing. The thing is if you pull a move like trading a star for a bunch of prospects, you better hit. If you don't you can just change your name to Pittsburgh Pirates.

Also if the Reds were able to flip Alonso and Grandal for Latos shouldn't the FO be confident that they can restock the farm system with the same caliber players?

I don't really agree with that. I think the reaction is completely fair. A 10 year extension when 2 years remained on Votto's contract that will take him to the age of 40 and pay him $250M in total is eye popping. The Tigers have a lot more money to spend and the Angels too. The Reds just don't. Votto's contract is going to be 1/4 to 1/5 of their total payroll for most (if not all) of his contract. The Reds are banking on a TV deal increase that hopefully will work out. Also, the quote about the prospects did not come from a scout, but an executive.

Brutus
04-03-2012, 03:51 PM
Backloaded $ per WAR = $3,613,658.00
Frontloaded $ per WAR = $3,836,288.00

Again, in Present Value.

I do think it would be a neat study to also calculate present value/future value for WAR. Obviously your WAR/dollar figures are based on current WAR values. However, while one win might be worth a $4.5 mil market value today, in 10 years from now, it will probably also be inflated.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:52 PM
Well, sure...I can do that. Give me a few.

-Matt

Sea Ray
04-03-2012, 03:54 PM
You're missing the point. Teams that were once so called small teams lose that mentality and start playing like big boys. Or they become the pirates or royals. Or they can finish in last for 10 years, and possibly become the rays, with no fans.



I deal more in real numbers than abstract things like mentality. If the Reds increase their payroll over a $100mill, great. If it stays sub 90mill, they'll be strapped regardless of mentality

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2012, 03:58 PM
The "established stars for multiple prospects" game plan, where has that ever resulted in a consistent winner? Its been tried repeatedly, but I'm having a hard time remembering even one good example of where that has worked out well, even in the short term (3-4 years).

Maybe you can run this through some simulator and let us know how the alternative universe turned out. Of course, with the generic descriptions of the prospects and the unknown quantity of Alonso and Grandal, it would certainly be challenging to develop the "trade Votto, save money" scenario. The Reds just paid, in part, for a little more certainty than the "prospects are all maximum return on investment" scenario you seem to be painting.

I think the Twins and the A's to varying degrees have had success with this model. Granted, maybe not world series winners, but success no less. Votto will likely be great for the Reds for another 5-6 years. I don't think anyone disputes that. But for the last half of his contract, it could get bad fast and for a lot of money. Further, yes, the descriptions of the prospects were generic, but we shouldn't automatically assume that they would not have made a difference either. I can think of a lot of "A" prospects I'd like to be Reds and to have 2 of those and 1 B prospect while keeping Grandal as trade bait is pretty interesting to consider.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 03:59 PM
I do think it would be a neat study to also calculate present value/future value for WAR. Obviously your WAR/dollar figures are based on current WAR values. However, while one win might be worth a $4.5 mil market value today, in 10 years from now, it will probably also be inflated.

Again, per 3.24% inflation rate (which will likely skyrocket as the cost of contracts are ballooning), thus creating an artificial "baseball inflation" rate.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture7-3.png

bucksfan2
04-03-2012, 04:09 PM
I think the Twins and the A's to varying degrees have had success with this model. Granted, maybe not world series winners, but success no less. Votto will likely be great for the Reds for another 5-6 years. I don't think anyone disputes that. But for the last half of his contract, it could get bad fast and for a lot of money. Further, yes, the descriptions of the prospects were generic, but we shouldn't automatically assume that they would not have made a difference either. I can think of a lot of "A" prospects I'd like to be Reds and to have 2 of those and 1 B prospect while keeping Grandal as trade bait is pretty interesting to consider.

The thing with the A's is they really haven't been relevant since the PED rules went into effect. And they are using the trade a star for prospect method to little success over the past 5 seasons. The problem from there perspective is Beane is cutting guys loose after 3 years. By the time a guy is ready to step in and become a star he is shipped off for more prospects. What often gets ignored is the A's run of success was aided by two MVP candidates as well as 3 Cy Young candidates. All young and cheap, but they were allowed to stay in the system for 6 years.

Captain Hook
04-03-2012, 04:16 PM
I heard Jim Bowden on 700wlw about an hour ago and he clearly stated that the deal is a eight year extension on top of the current two years left on Votto's contract.He says Joey will be paid 225 million over the next 10 years.I know that's not what most are saying but Bowden obviously believes these numbers are accurate.

Benihana
04-03-2012, 04:21 PM
I heard Jim Bowden on 700wlw about an hour ago and he clearly stated that the deal is a eight year extension on top of the current two years left on Votto's contract.He says Joey will be paid 225 million over the next 10 years.I know that's not what most are saying but Bowden obviously believes these numbers are accurate.

Don't say this often but I hope JimBo is right

Brutus
04-03-2012, 04:38 PM
Again, per 3.24% inflation rate (which will likely skyrocket as the cost of contracts are ballooning), thus creating an artificial "baseball inflation" rate.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture7-3.png

Thanks. I think that was an important adjustment, as we would expect each win to be worth more in the future. Overall, that does make the contract look a little more bearable if he's able to sustain production for at least the next 6-7 years.

Caveat Emperor
04-03-2012, 05:22 PM
Perspective -- 12 years ago in April, 2000, the iPod didn't exist (to say nothing of the iPhone and the iPad). WiFi, as we know it, was less than a year old and the first "campus wide" wifi at a university had just gone online. 3G cellular service wouldn't go live in the United States for another 2 years.

The point: You're kidding yourself if you think you have any clue how MLB teams will be generating revenue in 2020 and beyond.

traderumor
04-03-2012, 05:34 PM
The thing with the A's is they really haven't been relevant since the PED rules went into effect. And they are using the trade a star for prospect method to little success over the past 5 seasons. The problem from there perspective is Beane is cutting guys loose after 3 years. By the time a guy is ready to step in and become a star he is shipped off for more prospects. What often gets ignored is the A's run of success was aided by two MVP candidates as well as 3 Cy Young candidates. All young and cheap, but they were allowed to stay in the system for 6 years.6 straight seasons without a winning record. The shine is certainly off the sustainability of the "market inefficiencies" model. While Beane was a pioneer in ushering in an era where statistical analysis as a management tool is prevalent, all he did was remove the market inefficiency, and seemingly has not had another rabbit to pull out of his hat quite yet.

traderumor
04-03-2012, 05:37 PM
I think the Twins and the A's to varying degrees have had success with this model. Granted, maybe not world series winners, but success no less. Votto will likely be great for the Reds for another 5-6 years. I don't think anyone disputes that. But for the last half of his contract, it could get bad fast and for a lot of money. Further, yes, the descriptions of the prospects were generic, but we shouldn't automatically assume that they would not have made a difference either. I can think of a lot of "A" prospects I'd like to be Reds and to have 2 of those and 1 B prospect while keeping Grandal as trade bait is pretty interesting to consider.

Minnesota, did they get squat for Santana? What other "stars for prospects" deals have they done?

Oakland, as I showed above, isn't a very good example right now due to sustainability issues. They are on a 6 year losing streak (one .500 season mixed in there).

RedsManRick
04-03-2012, 06:00 PM
Again, per 3.24% inflation rate (which will likely skyrocket as the cost of contracts are ballooning), thus creating an artificial "baseball inflation" rate.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture7-3.png

Most baseball analysts use 5% as an average number for salary inflation. During the aughts, it was closer to 10%, but has been below 5% in recent years.

MikeThierry
04-03-2012, 06:04 PM
6 straight seasons without a winning record. The shine is certainly off the sustainability of the "market inefficiencies" model. While Beane was a pioneer in ushering in an era where statistical analysis as a management tool is prevalent, all he did was remove the market inefficiency, and seemingly has not had another rabbit to pull out of his hat quite yet.


Another issue on this is that a lot of major league teams now use a sabermetric approach to build their minor league system. The league finally caught up with what he was doing and now Beane isn't ahead of the curb.

_Sir_Charles_
04-03-2012, 06:19 PM
Perspective -- 12 years ago in April, 2000, the iPod didn't exist (to say nothing of the iPhone and the iPad). WiFi, as we know it, was less than a year old and the first "campus wide" wifi at a university had just gone online. 3G cellular service wouldn't go live in the United States for another 2 years.

The point: You're kidding yourself if you think you have any clue how MLB teams will be generating revenue in 2020 and beyond.

This.

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2012, 07:09 PM
Minnesota, did they get squat for Santana? What other "stars for prospects" deals have they done?

Oakland, as I showed above, isn't a very good example right now due to sustainability issues. They are on a 6 year losing streak (one .500 season mixed in there).

Oakland has struggled more as of late, but that doesn't mean they will in the future.

It's complicated with the Santana deal and many others because players in those deals are often traded. A few players that came back from that trade for players that helped the Twins (JJ Hardy, Jon Rauch).

The Twins botched the trade, which was on them. According to the article below, they had some great offers for ONE year of Santana (not 2, as would have been the case with Votto):

1. New York’s offer: Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera and Alan Horne.
2. Boston’s first offer: Jon Lester, Justin Masterson, Coco Crisp, and Jed Lowrie
3. Boston’s alternate offer: Jacoby Ellsbury, Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie

http://612sports.net/pros/twins/twinslatestnews/214-if-we-could-go-back-the-johan-santana-trade

Also, Minnesota sent Chuck Knoblauch to NYY for Christian Guzman, Eric Milton, Danny Mota, and Brian Buchanan.

Eric Milton was traded to Philadelphia for Carlos Silva and Nick Punto.

Brian Buchanan was traded to San Diego for Jason Bartlett, who was then sent to Tampa Bay for Delmon Young and Brendan Harris.

If you get right down to it, Chuck Knoblauch was traded for Nick Punto, Delmon Young, and Brendan Harris. Not too bad.

Tom Servo
04-03-2012, 07:30 PM
^Don't forget that they also traded away Matt Garza in that Delmon Young trade, who is more valuable than any of those other guys in the Knoblauch, Milton, Barlett, etc, deals.

JaxRed
04-03-2012, 09:04 PM
Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point.

First I think Votto is a half-tier below some of the top talent like Pujols, and I think Votto will have a less extended career at the top. He's not an imposing physical specimen like some of the other top players, which is why he didn't hit big till his age 24 season. And why I think he'll start declining a bit sooner. He may be the "old 30".

And locking him up 2 years before they had to, and committing such a huge chunk of their salary to one player. Sorry but to me this has disaster written all over it.

traderumor
04-03-2012, 09:14 PM
Another issue on this is that a lot of major league teams now use a sabermetric approach to build their minor league system. The league finally caught up with what he was doing and now Beane isn't ahead of the curb.Yea, you get ahead of the curb and you drive through a store.

kaldaniels
04-03-2012, 09:16 PM
Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point.

First I think Votto is a half-tier below some of the top talent like Pujols, and I think Votto will have a less extended career at the top. He's not an imposing physical specimen like some of the other top players, which is why he didn't hit big till his age 24 season. And why I think he'll start declining a bit sooner. He may be the "old 30".

And locking him up 2 years before they had to, and committing such a huge chunk of their salary to one player. Sorry but to me this has disaster written all over it.

Those WAR inflation charts really calmed my nerves a bit, maybe that will help you out. That's said, yes, if Votto stinks up the joint we are in big trouble.

traderumor
04-03-2012, 09:18 PM
Oakland has struggled more as of late, but that doesn't mean they will in the future.

It's complicated with the Santana deal and many others because players in those deals are often traded. A few players that came back from that trade for players that helped the Twins (JJ Hardy, Jon Rauch).

The Twins botched the trade, which was on them. According to the article below, they had some great offers for ONE year of Santana (not 2, as would have been the case with Votto):

1. New Yorkís offer: Phil Hughes, Melky Cabrera and Alan Horne.
2. Bostonís first offer: Jon Lester, Justin Masterson, Coco Crisp, and Jed Lowrie
3. Bostonís alternate offer: Jacoby Ellsbury, Justin Masterson and Jed Lowrie

http://612sports.net/pros/twins/twinslatestnews/214-if-we-could-go-back-the-johan-santana-trade

Also, Minnesota sent Chuck Knoblauch to NYY for Christian Guzman, Eric Milton, Danny Mota, and Brian Buchanan.

Eric Milton was traded to Philadelphia for Carlos Silva and Nick Punto.

Brian Buchanan was traded to San Diego for Jason Bartlett, who was then sent to Tampa Bay for Delmon Young and Brendan Harris.

If you get right down to it, Chuck Knoblauch was traded for Nick Punto, Delmon Young, and Brendan Harris. Not too bad.

Well, yea its on them, and that only highlights the problems with the "stars for prospects, save the cash for future acquisitions" approach. It is probably the most difficult way to approach the objective of long-term sustained success.

As for your examples, none of those guys would meet even a very generous definition of star.

Brutus
04-03-2012, 09:46 PM
Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point.

First I think Votto is a half-tier below some of the top talent like Pujols, and I think Votto will have a less extended career at the top. He's not an imposing physical specimen like some of the other top players, which is why he didn't hit big till his age 24 season. And why I think he'll start declining a bit sooner. He may be the "old 30".

And locking him up 2 years before they had to, and committing such a huge chunk of their salary to one player. Sorry but to me this has disaster written all over it.

Did you realize Votto has had a better OPS than Pujols each of the past two seasons? Perhaps you did, but a very, very good argument can be made that Votto has become a better hitter than Pujols.

The longevity on the deal, whether it's eight additional years or ten, is a worthwhile reason for concern. That said, if your concern is that Votto is a tier, or half, below Pujols, I think the last two seasons have set aside that fear. Votto is 29 and Pujols is 32. I think Votto's time has come to take over the reigns as the best 1B in the league.

How long will it last? Who knows. But he's absolutely in Pujols' category statistically.

Tony Cloninger
04-03-2012, 10:01 PM
Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point.

First I think Votto is a half-tier below some of the top talent like Pujols, and I think Votto will have a less extended career at the top. He's not an imposing physical specimen like some of the other top players, which is why he didn't hit big till his age 24 season. And why I think he'll start declining a bit sooner. He may be the "old 30".

And locking him up 2 years before they had to, and committing such a huge chunk of their salary to one player. Sorry but to me this has disaster written all over it.


Do you think he is going to turn into a fat George Scott all of a sudden at 30?

Is this Bill DeWitt talking here?

RedEye
04-03-2012, 10:05 PM
He's not an imposing physical specimen like some of the other top players, which is why he didn't hit big till his age 24 season. And why I think he'll start declining a bit sooner. He may be the "old 30".


I'm not sure I follow you here. I thought that the whole "old player" skills argument had more to do with players more like Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard, who pack a lot of natural power into their enormous frames but tend to lose it quickly once they hit 30. Votto, IMHO, doesn't profile quite the same. He's a big guy, sure, but appears to be built quite a bit less stockily -- just doesn't look like the body type that is going to start ballooning uncontrollably.

JaxRed
04-03-2012, 10:17 PM
I don't think it's a "big player" thing. I think Votto has achieved what he has by making the absolute most of his abilities. And once they slip a little I think it will affect him.

That's the beauty of calling back the thread. We can look at this in a few years, and say "Wow JaxRed couldn't have been more wrong". If you are right. :)

kaldaniels
04-03-2012, 10:18 PM
I'm going with Chipper Jones as my comp for Joey. And if Joey arcs like Chipper, I'll be satisfied.

hebroncougar
04-03-2012, 10:25 PM
I don't think it's a "big player" thing. I think Votto has achieved what he has by making the absolute most of his abilities. And once they slip a little I think it will affect him.

That's the beauty of calling back the thread. We can look at this in a few years, and say "Wow JaxRed couldn't have been more wrong". If you are right. :)

I cracked up today when I saw a complaint about the contract from a national sportswriter that called him a "slow footed firstbaseman". I think that's hilarious.

reds44
04-03-2012, 10:35 PM
Yeah, I don't see Joey all of a sudden falling off a cliff. It's not like he's a pure masher like Howard and Dunn. He's a high average and OBP guy with a great eye who goes the other way. I think even when he gets into his older years he'll still be able to be a productive player because of his pure hitting ability and eye.

Scott Hatteberg was was .291/.384/.440/.823 guy as a 36-38 year old as a Red. Is there any reason to think Votto won't do better than that?

MattyHo4Life
04-03-2012, 10:36 PM
Did you realize Votto has had a better OPS than Pujols each of the past two seasons? Perhaps you did, but a very, very good argument can be made that Votto has become a better hitter than Pujols.

Well, 2011 was Pujols' worst year of his career. I think that's the reason a lot of Cardinals fans aren't upset that Pujols went to LA. He already seems like he is in decline. 10 years is a long time. Another reason for Pujols is that there still seems to be a question about his age. Votto is younger than Pujols, but his extension won't start until he is closer to Pujols' age.

I was against the Cards resigning Pujols, but I was preparing myself for the Cardinals to resign him. I really expected them to sign him, even though I knew it would kill the franchise in the long term. The Cardinals got 11 great years out of Pujols, and I'm glad to see them turn the page. I'm not sure if Reds fans would have reacted the same way if Votto had left. There seemed to be a gloom with Votto trade talks and a lot of excitement with the news of the extension. I guarantee you that there wouldn't have been as much excitement on the Cards forums if Pujols resigned for 10 years. I hope Votto is the first player to make a 10 year extension look good for the team.

Phhhl
04-03-2012, 10:36 PM
I cracked up today when I saw a complaint about the contract from a national sportswriter that called him a "slow footed firstbaseman". I think that's hilarious.

Colin Cowherd kept saying that during his radio broadcast today. He still doesn't know who Votto is, apparently.

RedsBaron
04-03-2012, 10:41 PM
First I think Votto is a half-tier below some of the top talent like Pujols, and I think Votto will have a less extended career at the top. He's not an imposing physical specimen like some of the other top players, which is why he didn't hit big till his age 24 season. And why I think he'll start declining a bit sooner. He may be the "old 30".

Baseball Reference.com lists Pujols as being 6'3" and 230 pounds and Votto has being 6'3" and 220 pounds. I don't know that Pujols is any more imposing than is Votto.

RedsBaron
04-03-2012, 10:44 PM
Colin Cowherd kept saying that during his radio broadcast today. He still doesn't know who Votto is, apparently.

That sounds like a typical uninformed comment by Cowherd, who is the poster boy for the slogan "often wrong but never in doubt."

Captain Hook
04-03-2012, 10:49 PM
Follow the link and you'll see there's not much difference between Joey and Albert.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/paul_daugherty/09/08/votto.pujols/index.html

kaldaniels
04-03-2012, 11:08 PM
Joey Votto On Offseason and Reds' Baseball. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsAS7zYs8zI)

Just a fun interview to watch, thought I'd put it up here if anyone missed it.

Captain Hook
04-03-2012, 11:25 PM
Thanks KD for posting that the interview.Great stuff.

I know one thing about Votto.If at age 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 he doesn't feel like he's earning his money he won't be happy and it'll show.

mattfeet
04-03-2012, 11:29 PM
Most baseball analysts use 5% as an average number for salary inflation. During the aughts, it was closer to 10%, but has been below 5% in recent years.

For salary inflation, sure, but Im going off of straight inflation. What will $xx be worth 10 years from now.

fearofpopvol1
04-04-2012, 12:41 AM
Well, yea its on them, and that only highlights the problems with the "stars for prospects, save the cash for future acquisitions" approach. It is probably the most difficult way to approach the objective of long-term sustained success.

As for your examples, none of those guys would meet even a very generous definition of star.

Yeah, and your analysis doesn't seem to consider the cost to keep ONE expensive star while being a small market team. The Reds had Griffey Jr., who was considered to be a star without the "generous definition." How'd that work out? One star doesn't make a team. You have to fill holes at all positions. The Reds are positioned well for the next 4-5 years, but after?

Further, when you trade away players, it's rarely 1:1. Joey Votto may be worth 6 wins, but if you pick up 2-3 players of value, you can make up those wins plus have money to spend on free agents. $22M per season to spend can buy some very good pieces. To give you some perspective, Jon Rauch and JJ Hardy while with the twins were worth almost 4 wins. Santana has only eclipsed 4 wins once and that was back in 2008 when he hit 4.8. The Mets ponied up a lot of scratch with a full no trade clause to keep him while the Twins have the money to spend elsewhere.

To pretend like the Reds hit the jackpot while signing Votto to an enormous extension is misguided IMO. It's a very large risk. It may work out, it may not. Time will tell.

Chip R
04-04-2012, 12:57 AM
A big reason Votto's close to signing as extension? "I'm about to sign a huge deal, John, and you're the only media I have answer to." #reds

https://twitter.com/#!/johnfayman/status/186940116978241537

I'm not surprised if this is true. I don't think Votto wants to be in a fishbowl like NY or CHI or LA or even TOR. While TOR is not a large market compared to the other MLB markets, they are Canada's team and he would be the prodigal son coming home. I think you can imagine some of the pressure he would be under if he went to TOR. Votto has been in the league a few years so I assume he has a pretty good idea what it's like to play in NYC or CHI or LA. I assume he feels comfortable here. He knows he's going to get paid anywhere he goes but why not get paid in a place where he feels comfortable?

That said, the Reds are paying him quite a bit of money for a decade. I know he doesn't have any obligation to do this but I hope the Reds made it clear to him that he is going to be the face of this franchise. With that comes a lot of responsibilities. In reality, all he is obligated to do is hit 3rd and play 1st base. But this contract raises expectations of him. I think the Reds should - especially if Brandon isn't re-signed - make it clear to Votto that they would like to market him more. That means more interviews, more billboards, more ads and more interaction with fans. These may not be things Joey is comfortable with but I think the Reds should strongly insist that he gets more comfortable with the off-field activities for what they are paying him.

IslandRed
04-04-2012, 12:58 AM
Yeah, and your analysis doesn't seem to consider the cost to keep ONE expensive star while being a small market team. The Reds had Griffey Jr., who was considered to be a star without the "generous definition." How'd that work out? One star doesn't make a team. You have to fill holes at all positions. The Reds are positioned well for the next 4-5 years, but after?

If the club does a lot of winning for the next 4-5 years and it doesn't improve their revenue position, part of the strategy has failed. It's safe to say they expect to grow revenues. Part of this contract is probably coming out of the marketing budget. :cool:


Further, when you trade away players, it's rarely 1:1. Joey Votto may be worth 6 wins, but if you pick up 2-3 players of value, you can make up those wins plus have money to spend on free agents. $22M per season to spend can buy some very good pieces. To give you some perspective, Jon Rauch and JJ Hardy while with the twins were worth almost 4 wins. Santana has only eclipsed 4 wins once and that was back in 2008 when he hit 4.8. The Mets ponied up a lot of scratch with a full no trade clause to keep him while the Twins have the money to spend elsewhere.

Obviously, that strategy can work out well, and I'd add that if the team is a contender with Votto it's close to a contender without him, just because no one player makes or breaks a team. At the same time, payflex is often overrated. As I noted up-thread, the market for above-average ballplayers isn't particularly liquid. Just because a team has some money to spend doesn't mean it can spend it on exactly what it wants when it wants it, and almost by definition, free agents are rarely a deal.


To pretend like the Reds hit the jackpot while signing Votto to an enormous extension is misguided IMO. It's a very large risk. It may work out, it may not. Time will tell.

True enough.

Brutus
04-04-2012, 01:20 AM
A big reason Votto's close to signing as extension? "I'm about to sign a huge deal, John, and you're the only media I have answer to." #reds

https://twitter.com/#!/johnfayman/status/186940116978241537

I'm proud to say, from one of the threads that brought us designer clothing and fancy coffee discussions, I saw this coming over 18 months ago!


Short of signing a hometown discount with the Blue Jays, by Votto's own admission he doesn't seem to be a big market kind of guy. That's one of the reasons I've never really been concerned with his signability.

So I've kind of thought Cincinnati could keep him around a while, unless he decided to go play for Toronto.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2287431&highlight=votto+market#post2287431

OnBaseMachine
04-04-2012, 01:36 AM
Jon Heyman on the Votto extension:


4) Reds owner Bob Castellini badly wants to win, and while it isn't widely reported, isn't a very good loser (he is said to have a bit of Steinbrenner in him, which isn't considered such a bad thing anymore). "I give him credit,'' a competing owner said. "It's bold.''


http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/18279494/four-explanations-for-225m-votto-extension-one-of-the-nuttiest-deals-ever

cincrazy
04-04-2012, 01:37 AM
I'm proud to say, from one of the threads that brought us designer clothing and fancy coffee discussions, I saw this coming over 18 months ago!



http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2287431&highlight=votto+market#post2287431

I think Votto certainly preferred this kind of market. But still, let's be clear, it was no hometown discount. The Reds HAD to pay Votto the market rate, something I never thought in a million years they'd do.

Brutus
04-04-2012, 02:28 AM
I think Votto certainly preferred this kind of market. But still, let's be clear, it was no hometown discount. The Reds HAD to pay Votto the market rate, something I never thought in a million years they'd do.

No doubt about that. And to be clear, I was never anticipating much of a discount but I thought the Reds would step to the plate. Boy did they ever.

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 07:15 AM
No surprise here, and many have said this in this thread, but here's the NY Time's Baseball blogger weighing in on the fact that the Dodgers were about to alter the landscape. Our move and the Giants', in his opinion, correlated with that pending reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/sports/baseball/dodgers-sale-alters-free-agent-landscape.html?ref=sports

mth123
04-04-2012, 07:38 AM
No surprise here, and many have said this in this thread, but here's the NY Time's Baseball blogger weighing in on the fact that the Dodgers were about to alter the landscape. Our move and the Giants', in his opinion, correlated with that pending reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/sports/baseball/dodgers-sale-alters-free-agent-landscape.html?ref=sports

Agreed. I'm guessing all the dollar figures are going up. Revenues, Salaries, Franchise Values. TV Deals. I"m guessing the Reds saved some major bucks by making this deal now as opposed to waiting until late 2013.

PuffyPig
04-04-2012, 08:44 AM
I'm not surprised if this is true. I don't think Votto wants to be in a fishbowl like NY or CHI or LA or even TOR. While TOR is not a large market compared to the other MLB markets, they are Canada's team and he would be the prodigal son coming home.


Don't be fooled into thinking Toronto is not a "large" market just because it is in Canada.

In a list of North Amierica's bigest cities, only Mexico, NY, LA, Chicago and Dallas-Forth-Worth came out ahead.

traderumor
04-04-2012, 08:59 AM
Yeah, and your analysis doesn't seem to consider the cost to keep ONE expensive star while being a small market team. The Reds had Griffey Jr., who was considered to be a star without the "generous definition." How'd that work out? One star doesn't make a team. You have to fill holes at all positions. The Reds are positioned well for the next 4-5 years, but after?

Further, when you trade away players, it's rarely 1:1. Joey Votto may be worth 6 wins, but if you pick up 2-3 players of value, you can make up those wins plus have money to spend on free agents. $22M per season to spend can buy some very good pieces. To give you some perspective, Jon Rauch and JJ Hardy while with the twins were worth almost 4 wins. Santana has only eclipsed 4 wins once and that was back in 2008 when he hit 4.8. The Mets ponied up a lot of scratch with a full no trade clause to keep him while the Twins have the money to spend elsewhere.

To pretend like the Reds hit the jackpot while signing Votto to an enormous extension is misguided IMO. It's a very large risk. It may work out, it may not. Time will tell.

I provided some interesting thoughts on the "Griffey contract" comparison elsewhere in this thread. In short, different contexts. As for my misguidedness, I am still sorting through what this all means, but my initial thoughts are the biggest problem is the years. Will he produce the last half of his contract? But I hardly think "should have flipped him for prospects" is the starting point of something great. If you put those two scenarios in front of me, I'll take keeping my performing stud rather than a stable of ponies that might contain a few good horses.

The Reds are stirring up the dust in the baseball world. The Chapman signing, the Latos trade, the Marshall and Madson deals, and now this megadeal. Then there was the investment in some young Latin signings of a few years past, ponying up for 1st round picks and their bonus demands. This is one of a series of moves, admittedly the biggest one, but it certainly didn't come in isolation. So, it would seem reasonable to assume that future positive moves by this management team will be made.

Your position makes it sound like "boy, I don't think they've thought this through. They sure should have asked me first. Don't they remember Griffey?" They are making alot of moves that answer my question from a few years ago, which was if Bob was going to pay to play or just buckle to the "we're small market" excuse for his tenure as owner. Looks like the answer is he want to pay to play.

What I've been wondering is if Bob had the mega jackpot winning ticket this weekend?

Chip R
04-04-2012, 10:05 AM
Don't be fooled into thinking Toronto is not a "large" market just because it is in Canada.

In a list of North Amierica's bigest cities, only Mexico, NY, LA, Chicago and Dallas-Forth-Worth came out ahead.

Oh, yeah. But my point was that a lot of people think of TOR as Kansas City North compared to NY, LA, CHI, Philly, et. al.

Sea Ray
04-04-2012, 10:27 AM
Colin Cowherd kept saying that during his radio broadcast today. He still doesn't know who Votto is, apparently.

That says more about Cowherd than Votto

gonelong
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Put me down as liking the deal for the following reasons:

1. I like Joey Votto. I'll pay to see him play.
2. My 8 year old likes Jay Bruce and Joey Votto (in that order). He will beg me to take him to games.
3. I was gonna puke for 3 days when we eventually lost Votto to a larger market team.
4. I don't care about 5-10 years into the future of Reds baseball. I might be dead by then.
5. Votto is literally a poster-boy for what you want out of your franchise player. Humble, hard working, talented, driven, and your not concerned about 3am calls from the police department.
6. The Reds organization feels like they are in the early stages of a renaissance. With the crappy TV deal coming back around this deal positions us well to take advantage of that opportunity.
7. BC & WJ have pulled us out of the dark ages. I give them the benefit of the doubt.


GL

klw
04-04-2012, 12:11 PM
One way to look at the contract is that it will end 13 years before the Mets' contract with Bobby Bonilla is done.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575339013108198050.html


Nevertheless, starting on July 1, 2011, Bobby Bonilla will remain on the franchise's payroll for 25 years, collecting an annual salary of $1,193,248.20. Those are the terms the Mets agreed to Jan. 3, 2000, when they bought out the final year of Mr. Bonilla's contract.

"That beautiful thing," he said here Monday.


"Hey," Mr. Bonilla said, "a blind squirrel can find an acorn."

medford
04-04-2012, 12:16 PM
That says more about Cowherd than Votto

That's just part of Cowherd's stich (sp?) and what really annoys me about many sports talk radio hosts. For very few, its not about what they think or believe, its about what drives ratings. For Cowherd, saying Votto is great and likely to get that kind of jack on the open market doesn't drive callers and ratings. Saying he doesn't even know the guy, get the passionate fans of Cincy to tune and call up to rip on him.

Listen to his show enough and you realize most of the people he "picks" on come from parts of the country where the fans truely care. He'll pick on LeBron when he's with the Cavs, praise him when he's with the Heat. Why, because Cleveland fans care, while Miami fans are largely indifferent

HokieRed
04-04-2012, 12:21 PM
If you want a potential hall of famer to play his whole career in your city, this is the price. Personally I plan to enjoy as much of it as the Lord allows me, at my age, to see. There are various ways of weighing the price paid, but some of us still think, naively perhaps, that some decisions involve considerations that can't quite be weighed. I can only say that I wish that, on several occasions, similar decisions had been made about other Reds players of this caliber: most especially Robinson. Who knows what the cumulative value--could one estimate it--of Robinson's having played his whole career in Cincinnati would have been?

PuffyPig
04-04-2012, 12:29 PM
Oh, yeah. But my point was that a lot of people think of TOR as Kansas City North compared to NY, LA, CHI, Philly, et. al.

Just because Americans may not understand Canada doesn't make it true.

Toronto is a huge market.

jojo
04-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Just because Americans may not understand Canada doesn't make it true.

Toronto is a huge market.

Anyone who has ever had to drive in the Toronto area traffic can attest to that sentiment.

MikeS21
04-04-2012, 02:27 PM
I don't know enough about these contracts to answer this, but say around 2021-2022, Votto realizes his body isn't up to the grind of playing and decides to hang it up and call it a career. Are the Reds still on the hook for his salary at that point?

Right now, Votto is probably thinking he can still be going pretty strong when he's 39-40. But by the time he hits 37-38, he's gonna start wondering how much gas is left in the tank.

How does retirement work with whole guaranteed contract thing?

fearofpopvol1
04-04-2012, 02:35 PM
I provided some interesting thoughts on the "Griffey contract" comparison elsewhere in this thread. In short, different contexts. As for my misguidedness, I am still sorting through what this all means, but my initial thoughts are the biggest problem is the years. Will he produce the last half of his contract? But I hardly think "should have flipped him for prospects" is the starting point of something great. If you put those two scenarios in front of me, I'll take keeping my performing stud rather than a stable of ponies that might contain a few good horses.

The Reds are stirring up the dust in the baseball world. The Chapman signing, the Latos trade, the Marshall and Madson deals, and now this megadeal. Then there was the investment in some young Latin signings of a few years past, ponying up for 1st round picks and their bonus demands. This is one of a series of moves, admittedly the biggest one, but it certainly didn't come in isolation. So, it would seem reasonable to assume that future positive moves by this management team will be made.

Your position makes it sound like "boy, I don't think they've thought this through. They sure should have asked me first. Don't they remember Griffey?" They are making alot of moves that answer my question from a few years ago, which was if Bob was going to pay to play or just buckle to the "we're small market" excuse for his tenure as owner. Looks like the answer is he want to pay to play.

What I've been wondering is if Bob had the mega jackpot winning ticket this weekend?

A bad deal is a bad deal re: Griffey. This one could be a great deal, but it could also be a bad deal. A well respected expert has said that at best, it will be a fair deal if Votto plays the way he should play, but certainly not a great deal and a deal with risk. I'm pessimistic for the last half of that contract. I think it was an overpay. I think the Reds could have stayed competitive longer by filling other holes via a Votto trade and salary relief. You don't. Fine. Just remember, 1 stud doesn't make a team and 1 guy occupying 1/4 - 1/5 of your payroll is a large gamble for a small market team.

Roy Tucker
04-04-2012, 02:36 PM
I've decided there isn't much I can do about Votto's contract so I guess I'll just enjoy watching him play for the Reds.

Not a bad thing.

OnBaseMachine
04-04-2012, 04:04 PM
Reds have announced a 6:00 press conference for Votto per Jamie Ramsey and John Fay.

cincrazy
04-04-2012, 04:13 PM
Trading your superstar doesn't guarantee anything. The Twins practically got nothing in return for Santana. The Indians didn't get all that much in exchange for Sabathia. At the time it seemed like maybe so, because they were hot "prospects." Sometimes those guys hit (see the Indians trade of Colon to the Expos) and sometimes they miss. I'd much rather bank on Votto. I think he's a good bet to remain productive late into his career. As someone pointed out earlier, if Hatteberg can do what he did at his age, why can't Votto do something similar, if not better?

reds44
04-04-2012, 04:14 PM
A little off topic, but does anybody know how much money Votto is going to make off his cereal?

WildcatFan
04-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Walt just confirmed 10 years with a club option for 2024. My goodness.

reds44
04-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Jocketty officially announcers the contract extension is through 2023, so it is indeed 10 years, 225 bringing the total value of his contract to 12 years, 251.5 mil.

Oh and it includes an option for a 13th year.

kaldaniels
04-04-2012, 04:23 PM
Jocketty officially announcers the contract extension is through 2023, so it is indeed 10 years, 225 bringing the total value of his contract to 12 years, 251.5 mil.

Oh and it includes an option for a 13th year.

Not that it matters today, but Votto could use that option as leverage. "Pick it up or I will finish my career elsewhere.". Oh well.

MikeS21
04-04-2012, 04:23 PM
Walt just confirmed 10 years with a club option for 2024. My goodness.
lol! Joey Votto for player/manager!

reds44
04-04-2012, 04:25 PM
Not that it matters today, but Votto could use that option as leverage. "Pick it up or I will finish my career elsewhere.". Oh well.
It's possible, but so much will change between now and then. In 2023 Jocketty will be 72 and likely not the Reds GM. Who knows if Votto will even want to play when he is 38, etc.

You also would think a guy who will have been a Red his entire career and his coming off a contract for a quarter billion dollars would cut the franchise some slack.

Roy Tucker
04-04-2012, 04:25 PM
I How does retirement work with whole guaranteed contract thing?

I'm pretty sure that if a player voluntarily retires, they forfeit the balance of their contract.

I think it was Gil Meche retired with $12M left on his contract. He said he just didn't deserve it and retired.

reds44
04-04-2012, 04:34 PM
I'll be 34 or 35 when Votto's contract expires.

Yikes.

Sea Ray
04-04-2012, 04:41 PM
That's just part of Cowherd's stich (sp?) and what really annoys me about many sports talk radio hosts. For very few, its not about what they think or believe, its about what drives ratings. For Cowherd, saying Votto is great and likely to get that kind of jack on the open market doesn't drive callers and ratings. Saying he doesn't even know the guy, get the passionate fans of Cincy to tune and call up to rip on him.

Listen to his show enough and you realize most of the people he "picks" on come from parts of the country where the fans truely care. He'll pick on LeBron when he's with the Cavs, praise him when he's with the Heat. Why, because Cleveland fans care, while Miami fans are largely indifferent

I understand the ratings stuff and all but I think he's lazy. I think he only follows the big markets and truly doesn't know much about Joey Votto

757690
04-04-2012, 04:43 PM
It's official:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/04/04/official-votto-announcement/

Redsfan320
04-04-2012, 04:44 PM
6 PM Press Conference, live on MLB.com

320