PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3]

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 03:50 PM
I'll be 34 or 35 when Votto's contract expires.

Yikes.

You do realize that at this point in my life, 34 or 35 is still pretty darn young? Now just stop it, all of you little shavers!

Sea Ray
04-04-2012, 03:52 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.

Can we all we all now conclude that Bowden doesn't know what he's talking about?

reds44
04-04-2012, 03:55 PM
You do realize that at this point in my life, 34 or 35 is still pretty darn young? Now just stop it, all of you little shavers!
22 is too old for me. I wish I could have just turned 21 and stopped.

The Operator
04-04-2012, 03:56 PM
Can we all we all now conclude that Bowden doesn't know what he's talking about?Concluded that a long, long time ago hombre. :p

HeatherC1212
04-04-2012, 04:02 PM
*smiles* :jump:

Curses on anyone who doesn't understand how much it makes some of us :eek: when you talk about being in your 30s when Joey's contract expires. Some of us are all ready there or past it! :eek:

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 04:08 PM
*smiles* :jump:

Curses on anyone who doesn't understand how much it makes some of us :eek: when you talk about being in your 30s when Joey's contract expires. Some of us are all ready there or past it! :eek:

Sheesh, I just did the math - I'll be 69, or 70 if they pick up the option. Of course, that's still 35 years younger than my neighbor is right now. I'm thinking she probably won't be around by then, God love her.

Chip R
04-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Can we all we all now conclude that Bowden doesn't know what he's talking about?

http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g13335703907546883.jpg

Vottomatic
04-04-2012, 04:15 PM
I'll be 58 in 2023. Yikes.

I'm still amazed that both the Reds AND Votto went 12 years. Just stunned.

All I can think is that Joey simply likes the Reds and the small market atmosphere of Cincinnati vs. going somewhere big market and having to deal with all the microscope of the insane fans (New York, Boston, etc.). $20+M in Cincinnati is better than $25+M in New York for Joey. I'll give him that. Refreshing to say the least, to see a player do that.

And people forget that the cost of living in Cincinnati is far lower than either coast and most other cities in the U.S. That's why many athletes who played for Cincinnati end up living here and raising a family.

paulrichjr
04-04-2012, 04:19 PM
Funny how 200+ million made him get over his fear of commitment to the same place for an extended period of time. :)

The Operator
04-04-2012, 04:43 PM
Funny how 200+ million made him get over his fear of commitment to the same place for an extended period of time. :)I can't imagine many fears that 200+ million wouldn't help a guy with. :p

MikeS21
04-04-2012, 05:20 PM
I can't imagine many fears that 200+ million wouldn't help a guy with. :p
If my math is correct, @ $251 million, Mr. Votto will be making a little over $39.75 per minute - EVERY minute - for the next twelve years.

Vottomatic
04-04-2012, 05:27 PM
I can't imagine many fears that 200+ million wouldn't help a guy with. :p

Not true. I struggle with twohundredmilliondollaraphobia. It's a really strenuous disorder. :D

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 05:52 PM
Reds.com has a piece on Reds players reaction to Votto's extension. Arroyo finished his comment with, "They obviously think that he will be the same guy for a long time" after heaping lots of praise on Votto.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120403&content_id=27886348&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 06:12 PM
Wow, Catellini's statement was incredible. I'll post text when it's out there. Smart, smart guy.

Matt700wlw
04-04-2012, 06:19 PM
If my math is correct, @ $251 million, Mr. Votto will be making a little over $39.75 per minute - EVERY minute - for the next twelve years.

Sounds like a real expensive sex line

:eek:

edabbs44
04-04-2012, 06:23 PM
Wow, Catellini's statement was incredible. I'll post text when it's out there. Smart, smart guy.

Can you summarize?

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 06:24 PM
Oh, boy! Meltdown on Redszone on it's way - Bob said Joey's contract will not have a negative impact on discussions with Brandon "and with Dusty."

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:26 PM
I challenge somebody to watch that press conference and not be thrilled about Joey. He is the perfect face of the franchise. He is a different kind of dude and I mean that as a 100% compliment.

And Bob C is an absolute BOSS lol

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:27 PM
Can you summarize?
Something to the effect of it won't effect the team's financials moving forward and then without even being asked he said it has zero effect on BP's contract negotiations.

He is awesome. He always seems angry for some reason but I love it lol

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 06:30 PM
I challenge somebody to watch that press conference and not be thrilled about Joey. He is the perfect face of the franchise. He is a different kind of dude and I mean that as a 100% compliment.

And Bob C is an absolute BOSS lol

I absolutely agree. What an outstanding guy, both as a player and as a human being. And Castellini impressed the daylights out me. How great to have a smart, articulate hands-on owner.

And kudos, BTW, to C. Trent for two very good questions - one to Bob about how the decision was made, whether he unilaterally did it or talked with the rest of ownership. I'm blanking on the other, maybe his was the one about the Junior contract hamstringing the club - and Castellini hit that out of the park too. Hopefully a transcript will be up somewhere.

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:34 PM
Somebody asked Joey about the "long term commitment" comment that somebody brought up earlier in this thread. He said he was growing up as an adult and then said his girlfriend was there and she probably hopes it's a sign of things to come lol

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 06:43 PM
Somebody asked Joey about the "long term commitment" comment that somebody brought up earlier in this thread. He said he was growing up as an adult and then said his girlfriend was there and she probably hopes it's a sign of things to come lol

Yeah, I was crestfallen hearing that. I still held out hopes he'd marry my daughter! Rats!

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:48 PM
Votto's contract is for $12, $14, $20, $22 million. Then $25 million for the other 6 years. $20 mill option, $7 mill buyout. #reds

So if he gets the full value of his contract, it's 13 years, 271.5.

RedLegsToday
04-04-2012, 06:51 PM
Votto's contract is for $12, $14, $20, $22 million. Then $25 million for the other 6 years. $20 mill option, $7 mill buyout. #reds

so, he actually takes a pretty healthy paycut from his 2013 salary for 2014-2015...

And, there's no deferred money?

_Sir_Charles_
04-04-2012, 06:51 PM
Where are you guys seeing all of this?

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:52 PM
Where are you guys seeing all of this?
Twitter. Fay tweeted the money.

_Sir_Charles_
04-04-2012, 06:52 PM
Twitter. Fay tweeted the money.

No, I mean the Bob C interview stuff

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:54 PM
No, I mean the Bob C interview stuff
Oh I watched the press conference.

_Sir_Charles_
04-04-2012, 06:55 PM
That's what I mean. WHERE did you watch it? Local tv?

reds44
04-04-2012, 06:56 PM
That's what I mean. WHERE did you watch it? Local tv?
Reds.com

redsmetz
04-04-2012, 06:58 PM
Something to the effect of it won't effect the team's financials moving forward and then without even being asked he said it has zero effect on BP's contract negotiations.

He is awesome. He always seems angry for some reason but I love it lol

I agree with Reds44's summation, although regarding the looking angry, I think he's a very earnest person - that sort of no nonsense, all business, but I'm not sure that quite gets at it.

While he was talking and as he answered questions, it just struck me that he's incredibly smart. It was clear he knows this business, whereas I never had the sense that Lindner ever understood (or wanted to) the intricacies of a successful baseball franchise.

Cast was clear that they can do this financially. He was clear that a winning team needs more than just one player, that it's not just about one player. They seem to have done their homework and have hashed this out.

Back on to Votto's statement. He very simply said that he gives the game everything he has and that he intends to do just that going forward. He said he can't do anything about injuries or any of that, but that fans can know he gives it everything he has.

George Anderson
04-04-2012, 06:58 PM
Somebody asked Joey about the "long term commitment" comment that somebody brought up earlier in this thread. He said he was growing up as an adult and then said his girlfriend was there and she probably hopes it's a sign of things to come lol

Can anyone say prenup?

camisadelgolf
04-04-2012, 07:09 PM
Votto's contract is for $12, $14, $20, $22 million. Then $25 million for the other 6 years. $20 mill option, $7 mill buyout. #reds

So if he gets the full value of his contract, it's 13 years, 271.5.
This is awesome. In 2014, more than half the team could be arbitration eligible, which means they'll need to account for a lot of raises. A $7M pay-cut from Votto should go a long way to keeping everyone around. And the chances of retaining BP went from near-impossible to near-realistic.

edit: I think I misunderstood the terms of the deal. So this rewrites the deal he's currently on?

Why do I get the feeling that rival GMs are furious at Jocketty for this deal? This may not have much of an effect on how much players are expected to get paid, but the Reds really might've upped the ante for how many years are expected in superstars' contracts, which arguably has more of an impact.

JaxRed
04-04-2012, 07:12 PM
Contract gets even worse when the details are known. Now it's 13 years.

_Sir_Charles_
04-04-2012, 07:12 PM
Contract gets even worse when the details are known. Now it's 13 years.

Year 13 is an option. And we have no idea if it's a bad contract or not. None of us know the true financial state of the Reds. We're all guessing. As long as the reds have the money to do this and he stays healthy, it's not a bad choice IMO. If there's anybody you invest that long in, Votto's that kind of guy,.

FlightRick
04-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Votto's contract is for $12, $14, $20, $22 million. Then $25 million for the other 6 years. $20 mill option, $7 mill buyout.

If those numbers hold up, BCast was being 100% honest about this not hamstringing the front office in terms of building around Joey. For the next four years, the guy is playing on the cheap...

And then, if I am to believe what I read, just when his salary finally bumps up to $20+ million is when that sweet, sweet New TV Deal money is supposed to start rolling in. Not to mention looking further into the futuure with increased digital media revenue sharing, the invention of transporter beams increasing game attendance, and simple inflation mean those years at $25m won't hurt as much when they finally get here.

I still think we'll be grumbling in the last two years of the deal. But you know what? I'll take it....


Rick

JaxRed
04-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Even if you decline the option you have to pay $7 million.

camisadelgolf
04-04-2012, 07:18 PM
Even if you decline the option you have to pay $7 million.
That option is a clever move by the agent. If the Reds decline it, Votto gets a huge payday plus whatever he can get in free agency (less than $13M, I'm sure). If they accept it, it's a net cost of $13M for the Reds, but the following off-season, he will be coming off a $20M salary, which would cause rival GMs to start with a higher bid.

dougdirt
04-04-2012, 07:20 PM
That option/buyout is freaking horrible.

defender
04-04-2012, 07:22 PM
Even if you decline the option you have to pay $7 million.

But the 7 mil is included in the 225 figure. It is essentialy deffering 7 million 13 years. Votto traded away money he could have got now, for more years/dollars later on. Contract looks better than I thought.

Brutus
04-04-2012, 07:24 PM
That option/buyout is freaking horrible.

$7 million in 13 years from now is going to be chump change. And as mentioned, that $7 million is guaranteed money already included in the $225 mil figure.

_Sir_Charles_
04-04-2012, 07:24 PM
$7 million in 13 years from now is going to be chump change.

That's true. But it's also true that I really hope I have some chump change in my wallet by then too. :O)

edabbs44
04-04-2012, 07:40 PM
That option/buyout is freaking horrible.

Disagree, for previously stated reasons.

mattfeet
04-04-2012, 07:41 PM
Disagree, for previously stated reasons.

Im with you. Contract is more reasonable than I thought it'd be.

-matt

mattfeet
04-04-2012, 07:47 PM
Updated chart for Vottos salary figures:

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e395/mattfeet/Picture8-2.png

klw
04-04-2012, 07:47 PM
Im with you. Contract is more reasonable than I thought it'd be.

-matt

Most reasonable 12 year deal I have seen. Thanks for the chart.

mattfeet
04-04-2012, 07:48 PM
*not including buyout/option

dougdirt
04-04-2012, 07:53 PM
$7 million in 13 years from now is going to be chump change. And as mentioned, that $7 million is guaranteed money already included in the $225 mil figure.

I must have missed that part, but $7M buyout for a guy who will be what, 39 or 40? That seems like a lot. Salaries aren't going to double by the end of his contract, so we would still likely be talking about a 4.5-5.5M buyout in todays dollars for someone of that age. That isn't something to just brush aside.

mattfeet
04-04-2012, 07:54 PM
http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=121849&article=9996630 Snippet of press conference.

Patrick Bateman
04-04-2012, 07:55 PM
I must have missed that part, but $7M buyout for a guy who will be what, 39 or 40? That seems like a lot. Salaries aren't going to double by the end of his contract, so we would still likely be talking about a 4.5-5.5M buyout in todays dollars for someone of that age. That isn't something to just brush aside.

I'm fairly certain it was set up that way just to defer the money to the end of the deal. The 7M was just pushed back. That salary will likely be accounted for along the way.

mattfeet
04-04-2012, 07:56 PM
I must have missed that part, but $7M buyout for a guy who will be what, 39 or 40? That seems like a lot. Salaries aren't going to double by the end of his contract, so we would still likely be talking about a 4.5-5.5M buyout in todays dollars for someone of that age. That isn't something to just brush aside.

Actually, you're mistaken. (Thankfully, I might add). Given a 5% annual inflation of player's salaries, $7,000,000 in 12 years is equal to $3.89MM in today's dollars. Thats not bad, at all.

-Matt

_Sir_Charles_
04-04-2012, 08:05 PM
http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=121849&article=9996630 (http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=121849&article=9996630) Snippet of press conference.

Thanks for that Matt.

savafan
04-04-2012, 08:08 PM
Just one of the reasons why I like Votto:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120305/COL03/303050132/Doc-Joey-Votto-Ted-Williams-disciple?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Sports|s


“You might be able to get it online, but there’s nothing like having the book,” Votto said. “Also, there’s something about carrying it with you and remembering where you came from. No matter how deeply we are into our careers, we’re all just kids. This game never gets any easier. It’s nice to remember that when I was 18, I was looking at that book and trying my best, and when I’m 28, I’m still looking at it and trying my best, and hopefully I’ll be 38 and doing the same.”

Williams’ manifesto is not unknown to other major leaguers. Dante Bichette, briefly a Red, swore by it, too. Votto could be the only player who totes it around. A few years ago, one of Williams’ daughters sent him a pristine copy, bearing the inscription, “You’re exactly the type of hitter Ted would have liked.”

MikeS21
04-04-2012, 08:09 PM
Anyone know where we could catch a replay of the press conference?

Matt700wlw
04-04-2012, 08:09 PM
Why are we worried about 13 years from now?

They may be playing baseball on the moon by then, which would the greatest hitters park ever.

Degenerate39
04-04-2012, 08:16 PM
Why are we worried about 13 years from now?

They may be playing baseball on the moon by then, which would the greatest hitters park ever.

1:15

Major League 2 clip - eliminator, humiliator, terminator, out-of-stater, hibernator... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7IBPSJDT5o)

Reds Fanatic
04-04-2012, 08:30 PM
Anyone know where we could catch a replay of the press conference?

It is not the whole press conference but there are some parts of the conference on the Reds web site

BCubb2003
04-04-2012, 08:41 PM
1:15

Major League 2 clip - eliminator, humiliator, terminator, out-of-stater, hibernator... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7IBPSJDT5o)

I'm hoping it's his farewell tour before the Hall of Fame.

reds44
04-04-2012, 08:52 PM
This is awesome. In 2014, more than half the team could be arbitration eligible, which means they'll need to account for a lot of raises. A $7M pay-cut from Votto should go a long way to keeping everyone around. And the chances of retaining BP went from near-impossible to near-realistic.

edit: I think I misunderstood the terms of the deal. So this rewrites the deal he's currently on?

Why do I get the feeling that rival GMs are furious at Jocketty for this deal? This may not have much of an effect on how much players are expected to get paid, but the Reds really might've upped the ante for how many years are expected in superstars' contracts, which arguably has more of an impact.
2012: 9.5
2013: 17
2014: 12
2015: 14
2016: 20
2017: 22
2018: 25
2019: 25
2020: 25
2021: 25
2022: 25
2023: 25
2024: 20 team option or 7 buyout

mattfeet
04-04-2012, 09:29 PM
Why are we worried about 13 years from now?

They may be playing baseball on the moon by then, which would the greatest hitters park ever.

Arroyo already bought a 1-way ticket.

WildcatFan
04-04-2012, 09:56 PM
Contract gets even worse when the details are known. Now it's 13 years.

There's exactly one player in baseball I would give this contract to, and it's the one they got.

Sea Ray
04-04-2012, 11:10 PM
If I'm Castellini, I wake up tomorrow thinking "what did I just do?"

Sea Ray
04-04-2012, 11:12 PM
There's exactly one player in baseball I would give this contract to, and it's the one they got.

Locking up a guy for 12 yrs of guaranteed money is just nuts. I'm glad it's not my money but a five yr extension would have been quite generous.

reds44
04-04-2012, 11:12 PM
Votto would have never signed a 5 year deal.

PuffyPig
04-04-2012, 11:34 PM
Locking up a guy for 12 yrs of guaranteed money is just nuts. I'm glad it's not my money but a five yr extension would have been quite generous.

You may as well have said we should have signed him to a series of 12, 1 year options at $2M per season.

The Reds did not set the market, the law of supply and demand does.

Votto would have gotten more as a FA in 2 years.

PuffyPig
04-04-2012, 11:39 PM
That option is a clever move by the agent. If the Reds decline it, Votto gets a huge payday plus whatever he can get in free agency (less than $13M, I'm sure). If they accept it, it's a net cost of $13M for the Reds, but the following off-season, he will be coming off a $20M salary, which would cause rival GMs to start with a higher bid.

The Reds pushed $7M of salary into the last year and call it a buyout. That amount is already accounted for in the $225M amount.

Rival GM's start with whatever a player is worth at the time. They don't automatically offer more than his last salary.

oregonred
04-05-2012, 12:17 AM
94.5 over the next six years. Complete Bargain.

150 over the last six (ouch)

The Reds local TV contract will explode upward after 2017. The present value of the backended six years is much lower especially after figuring in the inevitable inflation kick from the Fed's printing presses running nonstop since 2008.

MattyHo4Life
04-05-2012, 08:13 AM
There's exactly one player in baseball I would give this contract to, and it's the one they got.

I think that 12 years or even 10 years is too long for any player. No matter how good of a player, everybody gets older and starts to decline. Take Lance Berkman for example. Earlier in his career, Lance was compared to Pujols a lot. Berkman's OPS prior to turning 30 was even better than Votto's career so far. Of course, like most players, Berkman started declining in his 30's. I'm certain nobody here would like to be paying Berkman 20-25 Mil per year for the next 5 or 6 years. The point is that anything can happen even in just a few years. Players can decline so fast. Few if anyone agreed that the Pujols contract was a good deal for the Angels, and it was for 10 years...not 12 years. I just don't think a 10 year contract is ever good for any player.

CySeymour
04-05-2012, 08:20 AM
I am extremely conflicted. On one hand, I am extremely excited as a Reds fan that the organization found a way to keep one of the best hitters on the planet in Cincinnati for the rest of his career. On the other hand, the length of the deal is nuts and can't help but hamstring the franchise during the last half of the deal. But I do love that BCast is wanting to win and wants to keep the superstar around.

Caveman Techie
04-05-2012, 08:24 AM
After seeing the amount of money and how the numbers drop after 2013 this is a good omen for resigning Brandon. Votto won't get expensive again until after the new television deal goes in to effect. That was smart.

I also loved how Bob C acknowledged the fact that they know they will need more than just Votto to compete and that this contract will not hamstring the team. That leads me to believe he is making the investment in the team to be competitive for the long term.

PuffyPig
04-05-2012, 08:46 AM
Few if anyone agreed that the Pujols contract was a good deal for the Angels, and it was for 10 years...not 12 years. I just don't think a 10 year contract is ever good for any player.

Yet when the Cards offered Pujols a 10-year (or was it 9?) contract the Cards posting boards were full of people who were truly excited at the prospect of keeping Pujols.

PuffyPig
04-05-2012, 08:47 AM
Take Lance Berkman for example.

Berkman is a bad example, as he allowed himself to get fat and lazy.

MattyHo4Life
04-05-2012, 09:09 AM
Yet when the Cards offered Pujols a 10-year (or was it 9?) contract the Cards posting boards were full of people who were truly excited at the prospect of keeping Pujols.

I'm not sure which Cards posting boards you were visiting. Few Cards fans I know wanted the Cards to resign Pujols. The day after he signed with the Angels...there was a feeling of relief by most Cards fans all throughout St. Louis. There were so many polls done by the news stations and most Cards fans understood that such a contract would have been bad for the team. I'm sure some fans were being short sighted and only thought about the first 5 years of the contract, but that isn't the majority.

MattyHo4Life
04-05-2012, 09:13 AM
Berkman is a bad example, as he allowed himself to get fat and lazy.

That can happen to anyone, especially when they are set for life. I don't think Astros fans thought Berkman was the type to do that. You can say Votto won't do that, and right now, I would agree with you. Votto just doesn't seem like the type. We are all human though, and nobody can predict the future. All we can do is look on past examples. Votto may continue to play well into his mid and late thirties and even early 40's. How many players have done that though?

REDREAD
04-05-2012, 09:33 AM
Obviously, there's a chance that Votto might get injuried or decline early.
I'm still glad we signed him though. This is what it takes to stop an MVP from shopping himself on the FA market.

An interesting comp is Rolen, since he turns 38 this year. (I think Votto will be 38 on his last year).. When healthy, Rolen is still an impact player. Hopefully Votto stays healthy better than Rolen. I think Votto will probably be overpaid a bit in his last 3-4 years, but not by an excessive amount.

Let's say we only get 10-12 million worth of production out of Votto in his last 3-4 years.. I still think it's worth it..

kaldaniels
04-05-2012, 09:42 AM
I know insurance was discussed regarding Madson. What sort of insurance is typical on a deal like this, if any?

mattfeet
04-05-2012, 10:12 AM
I know insurance was discussed regarding Madson. What sort of insurance is typical on a deal like this, if any?

Im not sure of the terms, but yesterday Fay confirmed that there will be insurance on Votto's deal. Teams usually don't insure 1 year contracts, regardless of the dollar amount. Once you begin getting into the 4-5yr deals, and certainly the 8+ year deals, insurance is a given.

-Matt

MattyHo4Life
04-05-2012, 10:16 AM
An interesting comp is Rolen, since he turns 38 this year. (I think Votto will be 38 on his last year).. When healthy, Rolen is still an impact player. Hopefully Votto stays healthy better than Rolen. I think Votto will probably be overpaid a bit in his last 3-4 years, but not by an excessive amount.

Votto will turn 40 during his final season under contract....he would turn 41 during the option year if it is picked up.

MikeS21
04-05-2012, 10:18 AM
I'm interested in what changes are in store that would boost a $10 million a year TV contract to a contract that is going to enable the Reds to spend all this money. You will most likely see Reds games leave basic cable and you will have to fork out the money for a premium channel in order to see the team play.

Pretty much the Reds are the only reason I have cable now. I won't be subscribing.

Sea Ray
04-05-2012, 11:35 AM
You may as well have said we should have signed him to a series of 12, 1 year options at $2M per season.

The Reds did not set the market, the law of supply and demand does.

Votto would have gotten more as a FA in 2 years.

I agree that we paid market value for him. We didn't get a discount for length of contract or for being his original team. I'm not sure that it's prudent to spend market value for a player like Votto if you're Cincinnati but it's not my money. If Castellini's good with it and it won't hamstring the club financially going forward, more power to him. But I wouldn't have done it

Caveat Emperor
04-05-2012, 12:45 PM
I'm interested in what changes are in store that would boost a $10 million a year TV contract to a contract that is going to enable the Reds to spend all this money. You will most likely see Reds games leave basic cable and you will have to fork out the money for a premium channel in order to see the team play.

Pretty much the Reds are the only reason I have cable now. I won't be subscribing.

There's virtually no chance that the Reds leave basic cable -- at least within the Cincinnati DMA.

fearofpopvol1
04-05-2012, 01:22 PM
I think that 12 years or even 10 years is too long for any player. No matter how good of a player, everybody gets older and starts to decline. Take Lance Berkman for example. Earlier in his career, Lance was compared to Pujols a lot. Berkman's OPS prior to turning 30 was even better than Votto's career so far. Of course, like most players, Berkman started declining in his 30's. I'm certain nobody here would like to be paying Berkman 20-25 Mil per year for the next 5 or 6 years. The point is that anything can happen even in just a few years. Players can decline so fast. Few if anyone agreed that the Pujols contract was a good deal for the Angels, and it was for 10 years...not 12 years. I just don't think a 10 year contract is ever good for any player.

Yep, this is exactly how I feel. I would've been cool with this deal if it had been an 8 year extension (for a total of 10 years). But 12 years + an option year with a noticeable buyout? Too much.

mattfeet
04-05-2012, 01:48 PM
The buyout is not additional cost!

LoganBuck
04-05-2012, 01:56 PM
I'm interested in what changes are in store that would boost a $10 million a year TV contract to a contract that is going to enable the Reds to spend all this money. You will most likely see Reds games leave basic cable and you will have to fork out the money for a premium channel in order to see the team play.

Pretty much the Reds are the only reason I have cable now. I won't be subscribing.

All the new exciting advertising dollars for Reds baseball. Asking the folks at Alamo Electronics, AE Garage Door, and Farmersonly.com to spend more.

REDREAD
04-05-2012, 02:10 PM
Votto will turn 40 during his final season under contract....he would turn 41 during the option year if it is picked up.

Ok, thanks for the correction..
Well, we are probably going to get burned the last 2 years of the contract at least.
I guess I am still ok with that, as it gives stablitity to the team now.
MVPs just don't grow on trees..
Unlike the Cards, we don't have a Holliday and Berkman ready to carry the offense if Votto left.. (Bruce might someday play at that level, maybe not).

yab1112
04-05-2012, 02:16 PM
Forgive me if someone posted this already - here's the audio from the press conference courtesy of Lance's Podcast:

Press Conference Audio (http://www.700wlw.com/player/?station=WLW-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=LanceMcAlister.xml&mid=21970007)

redsfandan
04-05-2012, 04:40 PM
I've mixed feelings. It's great that there won't be anymore talk about who his next team will be. But, this deal is scary. Hopefully they at least learned from the Madson signing and injury and insured this deal.

edabbs44
04-05-2012, 05:36 PM
One thing to think about, our view of older great players and how they age in relation to their long term contracts might be skewed because of the steroid era. Thinking about the generation before, guys like Brett, Schmidt, Ripken, Molitor, etc experienced success into their late 30s.

savafan
04-05-2012, 05:40 PM
One thing to think about, our view of older great players and how they age in relation to their long term contracts might be skewed because of the steroid era. Thinking about the generation before, guys like Brett, Schmidt, Ripken, Molitor, etc experienced success into their late 30s.

True, Dave Winfield and Dave Parker were both successful into their 40's

camisadelgolf
04-06-2012, 10:56 AM
The Reds pushed $7M of salary into the last year and call it a buyout. That amount is already accounted for in the $225M amount.

Rival GM's start with whatever a player is worth at the time. They don't automatically offer more than his last salary.
Are you accusing me of saying something that disagrees with that? I'm sure I didn't.

smith288
04-06-2012, 04:04 PM
forgive me if this link has already been posted. here is Dave Cameron's take:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/joey-vottos-massive-extension-changes-the-game/
Fan Graphs is almost unreadable due to 1995 web design. Man.

traderumor
04-06-2012, 04:35 PM
Random thought on the Votto signing: the Reds have been chronically out of free agent bidding wars, yet what they did with Votto fit the profile. They would not have dreamed of going after Pujols if they had needed a first baseman, just not their style. Yet, they just gave what was essentially a similar deal. It seems a little like talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Plus Plus
04-06-2012, 05:42 PM
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/how-have-previous-joey-vottos-aged/


The reality is that there are a good number of positive comparisons for Votto, and any analysis that suggests that this deal is obviously not worth the money isn’t presenting the whole picture. This deal could go very wrong, but previous first baseman who have performed in a similar manner at the same ages as Votto have gone on to have highly productive careers even as they got older.

PuffyPig
04-06-2012, 08:17 PM
Random thought on the Votto signing: the Reds have been chronically out of free agent bidding wars, yet what they did with Votto fit the profile. They would not have dreamed of going after Pujols if they had needed a first baseman, just not their style. Yet, they just gave what was essentially a similar deal. It seems a little like talking out of both sides of their mouths.

If Votto had been a FA he would have gotten more.

The Red felt comfortable giving Votto the $$$$ as they know him. The fans like him. He was worth more to them than a comparable FA from another team.

kaldaniels
04-06-2012, 10:58 PM
Random thought on the Votto signing: the Reds have been chronically out of free agent bidding wars, yet what they did with Votto fit the profile. They would not have dreamed of going after Pujols if they had needed a first baseman, just not their style. Yet, they just gave what was essentially a similar deal. It seems a little like talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Most didn't think they would extend Joey. You are making assumptions here. I am sorry to be curt but you did take a swipe at the front office.

PuffyPig
04-07-2012, 12:15 AM
Are you accusing me of saying something that disagrees with that? I'm sure I didn't.



I'm sure you did.

You said since he was coming off a $20M saalry, other teams would offer more.

Which makes zero sense. Teams will offer what he's worth at the time.

Will Arroyo expect a raise when his contract is over if he goes 3-15 with a 5.67 ERA?

camisadelgolf
04-07-2012, 12:32 AM
I'm sure you did.

You said since he was coming off a $20M saalry, other teams would offer more.

Which makes zero sense. Teams will offer what he's worth at the time.

Will Arroyo expect a raise when his contract is over if he goes 3-15 with a 5.67 ERA?
Yes, I said that he would be offered more money in that scenario. I never said they would 'automatically offer more than his last salary'. That's ludicrous. Maybe you need to read my posts again.

My point is basically this: free agents are paid more based on their previous performances and salaries than they are for their expected future performance. If you think that's an incorrect statement, that's fine with me, but I bet I can come up with better data to back up my claims than you could for yours.

Just to iterate, I never said GMs would automatically offer players raises regardless of their performance. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

traderumor
04-07-2012, 07:26 AM
Most didn't think they would extend Joey. You are making assumptions here. I am sorry to be curt but you did take a swipe at the front office.That the Reds have never signed a big money free agent on the open market is not an assumption. Here, they effectively handed out a big money, open market free agent-like contract. That is a dramatic difference than the typical party line.

I'm not sure what your last comment means. Do I have detention or something?

traderumor
04-07-2012, 07:29 AM
If Votto had been a FA he would have gotten more.

The Red felt comfortable giving Votto the $$$$ as they know him. The fans like him. He was worth more to them than a comparable FA from another team.I still think it deserves to be called shenanigans for every offseason of "we can't afford to..."

kbrake
04-07-2012, 07:50 AM
I don't think you can blame this ownership group for every offseason. These guys have spent money. They've extended Bruce, Cueto, and now Votto and no one saw the Reds being a player for Chapman. And maybe these owners have seemed like they were being a bit cheap the last few years but I'm guessing they knew this Votto deal was coming up at some point. I don't think its shenanigans I think they've done a great job.

mth123
04-07-2012, 08:01 AM
Maybe the Reds have been building a war chest. They knew that the time would come when increases for Cueto, Bruce and the arb guys would start piling up and that Votto and Phillips would be coming up for renewal. If the team does have $175 Million in Revenues (as reported) with a payroll under $80 Million for the last couple of years, it seems like they may have been able to bank a lot of cash. I don't know how much the other expenses total, but if the major league payroll is less than half of the total revenue, it seems like there should be some cash lying around. I'm sure they spend some on debt serrvice in addition to other expenses, but its hard tp imagine them spending $80 Million plus annually once the player payroll has already been paid. Add that if payment on some kind of debt service has been taking some cash, maybe the debt is paid now leaving more cash for player payroll.

I base most of my payroll assumptions on the Reds apparant budget, but if they are increasing the budget with these deals, I assume thay can afford it.

I also wonder if all teams have been setting money aside the last few years in case the renewal of the CBA went south or created a more unfavorable environment. Maybe now that the new CBA is signed, teams are spending that money. The Reds are not the only frugal team to spend big. Miami laid out a lot of dough as well.

traderumor
04-07-2012, 08:09 AM
I don't think you can blame this ownership group for every offseason. These guys have spent money. They've extended Bruce, Cueto, and now Votto and no one saw the Reds being a player for Chapman. And maybe these owners have seemed like they were being a bit cheap the last few years but I'm guessing they knew this Votto deal was coming up at some point. I don't think its shenanigans I think they've done a great job.That's a good point. They like their guys and rightfully so.

And I guess I'm probably coming off as critical, but overall, I think they've done a great job, also. But, this contract is the equivalent of a open market FA deal that they have always claimed they couldn't afford. That is really my only point.

buckeyenut
04-07-2012, 08:48 AM
That the Reds have never signed a big money free agent on the open market is not an assumption. Here, they effectively handed out a big money, open market free agent-like contract. That is a dramatic difference than the typical party line.

I'm not sure what your last comment means. Do I have detention or something?

There was an interesting analysis done over on Grantland that suggested that there won't be anyone on the market to spend this kind of money on over the next 2-3 years, so Votto was likely a bargain with the $$ coming in to MLB. People are resigning their own.

kaldaniels
04-07-2012, 09:20 AM
That the Reds have never signed a big money free agent on the open market is not an assumption. Here, they effectively handed out a big money, open market free agent-like contract. That is a dramatic difference than the typical party line.

I'm not sure what your last comment means. Do I have detention or something?

Nice change up. Actually what was said was that if they didn't have Votto, the Reds would not have pursued Pujols. That is an assumption. Though you haven't said it what I am getting from your remarks is that the front office is hypocritical. I tend to believe the Dodger deal was the catalyst to really move forward on Votto. I don't think it was anything sinister.

traderumor
04-07-2012, 09:45 AM
Nice change up. Actually what was said was that if they didn't have Votto, the Reds would not have pursued Pujols. That is an assumption. Though you haven't said it what I am getting from your remarks is that the front office is hypocritical. I tend to believe the Dodger deal was the catalyst to really move forward on Votto. I don't think it was anything sinister.
No change up, you misread as literal what I was using as a hypothetical example given a certain set of circumstances. Let me go back and see if that was unclear...

ok, I'll reaffirm my point, based on their history and the word coming out of this front office, it is highly unlikely that they would have entered the fray for Pujols., as an example, esp. when they had a first round draft choice in Alonso waiting in the wings. I guess, from the "but it is possible" angle, you are correct, its an assumption, in a cheap attorney trick kind of way. It was a theory on my part based on a "Reds do not sign big money, open market free agents" hypothesis. My deepest apologies to the entire Reds organization.

kaldaniels
04-07-2012, 10:15 AM
No change up, you misread as literal what I was using as a hypothetical example given a certain set of circumstances. Let me go back and see if that was unclear...

ok, I'll reaffirm my point, based on their history and the word coming out of this front office, it is highly unlikely that they would have entered the fray for Pujols., as an example, esp. when they had a first round draft choice in Alonso waiting in the wings. I guess, from the "but it is possible" angle, you are correct, its an assumption, in a cheap attorney trick kind of way. It was a theory on my part based on a "Reds do not sign big money, open market free agents" hypothesis. My deepest apologies to the entire Reds organization.

Care to elaborate on the cheap attorney remark? Name calling isn't really necessary here. For what it is worth I didn't think it was possible either that the Reds would be stepping up to pay Votto 225 Million. So I'm really not playing word games here.

Look, I'm just not understanding why you seemingly passed judgement on the front office here. Votto is a consensus top-4 player in the game. The front office stepped up big time to sign him. I get it. It was very "un-Reds" like to do the deal. No qualms there.

But lets not kid ourselves on what we have previously heard either. Of course the Reds could have afforded a 25 million dollar in the past...they have had a 60 million dollar plus payroll for awhile. They have just chosen not to. And perhaps they have given us some GM-speak regarding just that, but its GM-speak, you have to take it for what it is worth. And again, word is that the Dodgers deal changed the thought process of the upcoming revenue stream, just an assumption there of course.

What I am getting from your take is along the lines of (hypothetical) "I'm upset the Reds didn't try to sign (ex.) Cliff Lee because of payroll issues, yet they give Votto 225 Million. What hypocrites (Or in your words "What Talkers out of Both Sides of their Mouths")". I however think things have changed in the past 1-2 years, and I also think each contract situation is a unique one and must be considered independently.

mth123
04-07-2012, 04:33 PM
I think one thing being over-looked here is the difference between having sole negotiating rights to a guy and having to get into a bidding war. The Reds seem willing to go through the process with their own players, they just don't want to be involved with outside parties interjecting themsleves into the negotiation.

That's a huge difference and may explain why the Reds are willing to make a deal with Votto while staying completely away from bidding on some one like Pujols or Fielder.

traderumor
04-07-2012, 06:34 PM
Care to elaborate on the cheap attorney remark? Name calling isn't really necessary here. For what it is worth I didn't think it was possible either that the Reds would be stepping up to pay Votto 225 Million. So I'm really not playing word games here.

Look, I'm just not understanding why you seemingly passed judgement on the front office here. Votto is a consensus top-4 player in the game. The front office stepped up big time to sign him. I get it. It was very "un-Reds" like to do the deal. No qualms there.

But lets not kid ourselves on what we have previously heard either. Of course the Reds could have afforded a 25 million dollar in the past...they have had a 60 million dollar plus payroll for awhile. They have just chosen not to. And perhaps they have given us some GM-speak regarding just that, but its GM-speak, you have to take it for what it is worth. And again, word is that the Dodgers deal changed the thought process of the upcoming revenue stream, just an assumption there of course.

What I am getting from your take is along the lines of (hypothetical) "I'm upset the Reds didn't try to sign (ex.) Cliff Lee because of payroll issues, yet they give Votto 225 Million. What hypocrites (Or in your words "What Talkers out of Both Sides of their Mouths")". I however think things have changed in the past 1-2 years, and I also think each contract situation is a unique one and must be considered independently.No need to elaborate, it is clear what I meant. The rest, you may have the last word.

mattfeet
04-07-2012, 10:42 PM
"The Reds funded Joey Votto's big contract extension with the $25MM per year they've received in revenue sharing over the past 10 years, writes Bill Madden of the New York Daily News. We've heard whispers previously that the Reds had drawn upon shared revenues to lock up Votto, though this seems to be the first mention of such a specific sum."

mth123
04-07-2012, 11:03 PM
"The Reds funded Joey Votto's big contract extension with the $25MM per year they've received in revenue sharing over the past 10 years, writes Bill Madden of the New York Daily News. We've heard whispers previously that the Reds had drawn upon shared revenues to lock up Votto, though this seems to be the first mention of such a specific sum."

This why the new deals in Texas, LA and San Diego matter. If the Reds don't increase revenue with their own deal, the big deals other teams are signing will make the amount of revenue sharing money they receive go higher. Either way, the Reds revenues should be on the rise.

lollipopcurve
04-09-2012, 10:12 AM
"The Reds funded Joey Votto's big contract extension with the $25MM per year they've received in revenue sharing over the past 10 years, writes Bill Madden of the New York Daily News. We've heard whispers previously that the Reds had drawn upon shared revenues to lock up Votto, though this seems to be the first mention of such a specific sum."

The choice of the word "whispers" here is unfair. There is nothing -- zero -- wrong with saving this money and later using it to lock up on-field talent. The writer is implying there is something shady about it -- and there isn't.

Typical NY perspective -- smaller market teams are screwing the big markets by not making their best talent available for big-market shoppers.

OesterPoster
04-09-2012, 11:08 AM
The choice of the word "whispers" here is unfair. There is nothing -- zero -- wrong with saving this money and later using it to lock up on-field talent. The writer is implying there is something shady about it -- and there isn't.

Typical NY perspective -- smaller market teams are screwing the big markets by not making their best talent available for big-market shoppers.

I think the quote is slightly out-of-context. The article I read on the NY newspaper site said that the revenue sharing money the Reds used was used exactly the way it was intended to.

lollipopcurve
04-09-2012, 11:14 AM
I think the quote is slightly out-of-context. The article I read on the NY newspaper site said that the revenue sharing money the Reds used was used exactly the way it was intended to.

Glad to hear that!

Degenerate39
04-09-2012, 12:01 PM
When does Bruce become a free agent? I know it's going to be a while he just signed that extention a season ago or so. I'm curious if they'll have any problem signing Jay in the future because of this contract

WildcatFan
04-09-2012, 12:44 PM
When does Bruce become a free agent? I know it's going to be a while he just signed that extention a season ago or so. I'm curious if they'll have any problem signing Jay in the future because of this contract

Signed thru 2016 with an option for 2017. By then there's really no telling what the financial situation will be like.

oregonred
04-09-2012, 01:29 PM
This why the new deals in Texas, LA and San Diego matter. If the Reds don't increase revenue with their own deal, the big deals other teams are signing will make the amount of revenue sharing money they receive go higher. Either way, the Reds revenues should be on the rise.

If the Reds can't manage to increase the TV deal to at minimum the size of what the much smaller DMA market San Diego Padres received (~60M per season), then the entire front office should be replaced.

The Reds TV revenue is going to increase dramatically. $50M a year floor and $80-100M a year should be the target with a new regional sports network if Fox Sports doesn't pony up big. I'm convinced the FO knows the TV revenue beginning in 2016 is about to explode.

redsmetz
04-09-2012, 04:24 PM
The Business Courier weighs in on the Votto extension

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2012/04/06/cincinnati-reds-play-hardball-to-hang.html

kaldaniels
04-09-2012, 04:29 PM
The Business Courier weighs in on the Votto extension

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2012/04/06/cincinnati-reds-play-hardball-to-hang.html

Paywall.

fearofpopvol1
04-10-2012, 04:47 PM
I watched a little bit of the Cubs/Brewers game last night and someone, can't remember who, brought up a good point.

The point was that at no point during Braun's entire deal will he hit $20 mil/year….and that's Votto's jumping off point.

Granted, the Brewers had a little more leverage, but it's still a good point.

redsmetz
04-10-2012, 05:24 PM
Paywall.

Sorry, after noting that it's understandable that some may bemoan the fact that we pay extraordinary amounts to entertainers (including athletes), instead of, for instance, things like infrastructure, they say:

OK, that’s true. But in this city, we have a Major League Baseball team that we want to keep for lots of reasons, including the franchise’s impact on economic development (just look at the Banks). And, as we know from long and bitter experience, having pro sports teams that languish at the bottom of the rankings is a waste of money.

So the Reds have decided to play ball the way ball is played nowadays. And that means keeping their still-young star rather than grooming him to be picked up by a big-money team like the New York Yankees or Los Angeles Dodgers once his contract expires and he becomes a free agent.

camisadelgolf
04-11-2012, 05:24 AM
I watched a little bit of the Cubs/Brewers game last night and someone, can't remember who, brought up a good point.

The point was that at no point during Braun's entire deal will he hit $20 mil/year….and that's Votto's jumping off point.

Granted, the Brewers had a little more leverage, but it's still a good point.
In terms of dollars, the big difference is that Braun has a terrible agent, and Votto has a very good one. Also, the Brewers already had Braun locked up for about five more years, so they had plenty more than a "little" more leverage.

edabbs44
04-11-2012, 07:01 AM
I watched a little bit of the Cubs/Brewers game last night and someone, can't remember who, brought up a good point.

The point was that at no point during Braun's entire deal will he hit $20 mil/year….and that's Votto's jumping off point.

Granted, the Brewers had a little more leverage, but it's still a good point.

Semantics, as his average annual pay for his extension is $21MM.

fearofpopvol1
04-11-2012, 01:39 PM
Semantics, as his average annual pay for his extension is $21MM.

Braun got $45M for the first 7 year extension. The 2nd extension was pricier, but we're talking an average of $12.1 million for 12 years. That ain't semantics as compared to Votto. The Braun deal is much better.

camisadelgolf
04-11-2012, 01:42 PM
Braun got $45M for the first 7 year extension. The 2nd extension was pricier, but we're talking an average of $12.1 million for 12 years. That ain't semantics as compared to Votto. The Braun deal is much better.
Braun either needs a new agent, or he's an incredibly nice guy who decided to take less salary to help his organization.

jojo
04-11-2012, 02:31 PM
Braun either needs a new agent, or he's an incredibly nice guy who decided to take less salary to help his organization.

Its the double edged sword of being extended early on.... the Brewers had all of the leverage for the second extension. Agents are really only as good as their leverage.

kaldaniels
04-11-2012, 03:50 PM
Braun got $45M for the first 7 year extension. The 2nd extension was pricier, but we're talking an average of $12.1 million for 12 years. That ain't semantics as compared to Votto. The Braun deal is much better.

You have to spread the bonus out evenly when discussing per year value of the contact. It is the only even handed way to discuss it.

So when you say "the point is Braun will not make more than 20 million a year" but he makes an average of 21 million over the course of his 2011 extension, yeah, it kinda is semantics.

Now my 3 points

I consider Votto to project better than Braun, hence I would pay him a bit more.

Contracts have gotten more expensive since Braun signed.

Braun has a nice looking deal, better looking than Votto's, but considering the above it isn't worth complaining over.

fearofpopvol1
04-11-2012, 04:13 PM
You have to spread the bonus out evenly when discussing per year value of the contact. It is the only even handed way to discuss it.

So when you say "the point is Braun will not make more than 20 million a year" but he makes an average of 21 million over the course of his 2011 extension, yeah, it kinda is semantics.

Now my 3 points

I consider Votto to project better than Braun, hence I would pay him a bit more.

Contracts have gotten more expensive since Braun signed.

Braun has a nice looking deal, better looking than Votto's, but considering the above it isn't worth complaining over.

If that's how you choose to look at the deal, fine. But my way of looking at it isn't wrong. Braun will average $12.1M a year for the life of his contract. That is much less than Votto will be receiving. Not to mention, Braun's deal with Milwaukee will end a bit earlier than Votto's will with the Reds as well.

kaldaniels
04-11-2012, 04:20 PM
If that's how you choose to look at the deal, fine. But my way of looking at it isn't wrong. Braun will average $12.1M a year for the life of his contract. That is much less than Votto will be receiving. Not to mention, Braun's deal with Milwaukee will end a bit earlier than Votto's will with the Reds as well.

Braun signed the first contract with less than 1 year of service time under his belt. We are truly dealing with apples and oranges here.

fearofpopvol1
04-11-2012, 04:30 PM
Braun signed the first contract with less than 1 year of service time under his belt. We are truly dealing with apples and oranges here.

The Brewers got a much better deal than the Reds did.

camisadelgolf
04-11-2012, 04:33 PM
The Brewers got a much better deal than the Reds did.
If Braun flopped, it would've been a much worse deal. What the Brewers did was high-risk/high-reward. Fortunately for them, it paid off, but it doesn't always. Should the Reds have made a similar offer to Votto after his rookie campaign? Yeah, probably. For all we know, maybe they did. But Votto kept insisting that he wasn't ready to sign long term, and look at how that worked out for him. Votto played the money game better than Braun did, and it's paying off with huge dividends. You can't extend a player who doesn't want to be extended.

kaldaniels
04-11-2012, 04:49 PM
The Brewers got a much better deal than the Reds did.

If you had said I wish the Reds locked up Votto early like the Brewers did with Braun, I would have agreed with you.

Instead you made your "point" that Braun would never get more than 20 Million per year when he signed a 5 yr extension for 105 million. That reasoning I took exception to.

The favorable Braun contract was signed 4 years ago and the Brewers assumed a lot of risk as noted above.

jojo
04-11-2012, 05:27 PM
The Brewers got a much better deal than the Reds did.

Thats because the Brewers had tremendous leverage.....

The Reds didn't have the same leverage and Votto also put their feet to the fire by not selling his free agent years. Really, kudos to Votto and his agent.

From Braun's perspective, he also did very well considering the context of his contract status.

membengal
04-11-2012, 05:47 PM
The Brewers got a much better deal than the Reds did.

Up until their guy was outed as a steroid cheat.

They best hope he is as effective off the juice as he was on because that is silly money for him otherwise.

Gainesville Red
04-15-2012, 10:49 AM
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/14/joey-votto-legend-in-the-making

nate
04-15-2012, 11:30 AM
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/14/joey-votto-legend-in-the-making

Nice article, GR.

kaldaniels
04-15-2012, 12:33 PM
Bar-none the best article I have read on the extension.

Degenerate39
04-15-2012, 01:28 PM
AL MVP Award in 2010.

Didn't know the Reds were in the AL

dougdirt
04-15-2012, 04:23 PM
Didn't know the Reds were in the AL

Shows what you know under those sombreros!

HeatherC1212
04-15-2012, 05:46 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/14/joey-votto-legend-in-the-making

Awesome article! I love what he said about Cincinnati and how much he really made sure he was making the right decision. I adore this guy so much. Thanks for posting this here! :thumbup: :beerme: :D

Kc61
04-15-2012, 07:36 PM
I thought today's game against the Nats showed why Votto deserves this contract. Key game, team losing, team not hitting.

Votto gets the winning hit, makes the winning defensive play. He just comes up big for the Reds time after time.

Great player. And I don't use the words often.

dougdirt
04-15-2012, 07:44 PM
I thought today's game against the Nats showed why Votto deserves this contract. Key game, team losing, team not hitting.

Votto gets the winning hit, makes the winning defensive play. He just comes up big for the Reds time after time.

Great player. And I don't use the words often.

He is good at baseball.

I still can't believe they pitched to him with Rolen on deck. 1 out or not, I don't care. Rolen hasn't had a hard hit since he left Arizona.

Brutus
04-15-2012, 07:52 PM
He is good at baseball.

I still can't believe they pitched to him with Rolen on deck. 1 out or not, I don't care. Rolen hasn't had a hard hit since he left Arizona.

There was one out, correct? The problem is that if you put Votto on intentionally/unintentionally, loading the bases sets up so many more ways the Reds can score the go-ahead run. I would think the percentages of avoiding a run were actually higher by pitching to Votto with runners at 1st & 2nd than pitching with Rolen with 'em loaded. Allowing sac flies, balks, wild pitches, failed double play attempts, etc. to enter the equation puts the odds against you.

dougdirt
04-15-2012, 08:00 PM
There was one out, correct? The problem is that if you put Votto on intentionally/unintentionally, loading the bases sets up so many more ways the Reds can score the go-ahead run. I would think the percentages of avoiding a run were actually higher by pitching to Votto with runners at 1st & 2nd than pitching with Rolen with 'em loaded. Allowing sac flies, balks, wild pitches, failed double play attempts, etc. to enter the equation puts the odds against you.

There was one out. I still would have taken my chances. Scott Rolen had an OBP of about .150 this year going into his at bat. He hasn't shown any ability to hit the ball with authority. He has been very aggressive. With my best reliever on the mound, I am walking Votto and pitching to Scott Rolen.

Brutus
04-15-2012, 08:04 PM
There was one out. I still would have taken my chances. Scott Rolen had an OBP of about .150 this year going into his at bat. He hasn't shown any ability to hit the ball with authority. He has been very aggressive. With my best reliever on the mound, I am walking Votto and pitching to Scott Rolen.

I just think in that situation, by not letting the other team's best hitter beat you, you're actually putting yourself in a position to beat yourself. Too many fluke things can happen to score with a runner on third, especially less than two outs.

And as bad as Rolen has been thus far this year, pitching to him with the bases loaded means he's going to get something better to hit. I just think the odds sway in the Reds' favor by pitching around Votto.

Degenerate39
04-15-2012, 10:31 PM
Shows what you know under those sombreros!

If the picture was still Gomes then I wouldn't have any retort for that