PDA

View Full Version : Inventory



Brutus
04-10-2012, 06:12 PM
I was never in one camp or another on Bob Castellini. Some thought he was cheap and full of rhetoric. Others thought he was committed to winning and when the timing was right, would do what it takes. I was kind of in 'show-me' mode.

After taking inventory of these last 5-6 months, I'm now a Castellini supporter and, by proxy, gung-ho about the job Walt Jocketty has done with his resources.

What a wild ride, yes?

* Traded for one of the emerging young aces in baseball that has four years under the club's control

* Traded for, statistically, the best reliever in baseball the past two seasons and then engineered an extension to mitigate what seemed like a bit of an overpay in the trade

* Signed one of the two premier free agent closers on the market

* Signed a historic contract extension with an MVP to keep one of the top hitters in baseball in town for, most likely, the rest of his career

* Followed-up the previous contract with an extension of one of the better second baseman in baseball, despite people assuming they'd not have the money to do so

There is some definite risk here. Honestly, I love Phillips but I don't have a lot of confidence in this extension. I actually feel like it's going to bite the Reds in the rear end (of the deal). You know what though? This is what winning teams do... they take risks.

Even more truthfully, I don't like long contracts. Frankly, I think it's kind of counter-intuitive the way our baseball contracts work. You're paying players cheaply during the prime of their careers, and by the time they hit the market when they're inevitably going to begin their decline, you're paying an insane amount of money. It really doesn't make sense. But despite my fondness for the Tampa Bay Rays' approach (developing your own players and unloading them a year in advance for more top tier talent), sooner or later you've got to be able to step up to the plate.

The Reds have done that. There will be a residual impact by doing so. Free agents and homegrown talent alike will begin to see the Reds as a serious franchise that is committed to winning. Oh, no question the risk could win out and these deals could be a nightmare in 5-10 years respectively.

But as Teddy Roosevelt famously said,

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

mattfeet
04-10-2012, 06:19 PM
Fantastic TR quote and equally good post.

-Matt

edabbs44
04-10-2012, 06:22 PM
I've been positive about this regime for a long time and haven't changed my position much.

MikeS21
04-10-2012, 06:56 PM
My only issue is that these insane contracts do nothing to help the runaway freight train of baseball economics. Spending like a large market team does not magically turn Cincinnati into a large market. And while the spending will lead to a modest bump in attendance, I don't think it will be enough to sustain the payroll. And the team is one injury away from losing the bump in attendance.

I do agree with Brutus. I prefer the Tampa Bay model, because it is immensely more satisfying than following the Yankee's model of spend and win. I just prefer to draft, develop and win, without the crippling contracts.

edabbs44
04-10-2012, 07:00 PM
My only issue is that these insane contracts do nothing to help the runaway freight train of baseball economics. Spending like a large market team does not magically turn Cincinnati into a large market. And while the spending will lead to a modest bump in attendance, I don't think it will be enough to sustain the payroll. And the team is one injury away from losing the bump in attendance.

I do agree with Brutus. I prefer the Tampa Bay model, because it is immensely more satisfying than following the Yankee's model of spend and win. I just prefer to draft, develop and win, without the crippling contracts.

Cincy isn't buying players. There should be some satisfaction here, without a doubt. Completely different situation.

Brutus
04-10-2012, 07:02 PM
My only issue is that these insane contracts do nothing to help the runaway freight train of baseball economics. Spending like a large market team does not magically turn Cincinnati into a large market. And while the spending will lead to a modest bump in attendance, I don't think it will be enough to sustain the payroll. And the team is one injury away from losing the bump in attendance.

I do agree with Brutus. I prefer the Tampa Bay model, because it is immensely more satisfying than following the Yankee's model of spend and win. I just prefer to draft, develop and win, without the crippling contracts.

At least with Votto, it's more satisfactory that they didn't buy Votto. They drafted him, developed him, played him and now will pay him and keep him. That's the one thing I do like about this model the Reds are using currently is that they're not just going out and out-bidding people. They're using homegrown talent to trade for and/or develop their own players and then rewarding them with contracts.

I don't care if the Reds are a small market team or a large market team, it only matters what their revenue is and how they spend it. If these deals don't prohibit them from being competitive with the rest of the roster, then I suppose all is well. I, like you, am not crazy about the runaway spending, but if the future revenue models suggest the money is going to be there, I guess it's fine that they're spending.

VR
04-10-2012, 07:18 PM
I'd go back to December of 2010, and the signing of Jay Bruce...and also add the decision to let CoCo walk last year as two other huge moves in the right direction for the team.

westofyou
04-10-2012, 08:52 PM
So far the ownership group has been everything I hoped for in 2006

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42397



Ownership transfer can and should be an exciting moment for teams that float aimlessly across the lunchrooms of the game. Any change is good when you spend most of your seasons enviously sneaking peaks at the popular kids table, watching them all having a good time day after day as the Reds have regularly been doing since the 70ís.

Most fans forced to live with this sense of mediocrity harbor secret sugar daddy wishes from new ownership, others just want a different approach to be considered, which in the baseball world should also imply a fresh blueprint when it comes to how the team is developed, deployed and marketed, especially if your team lives in the long shadow of a dynasty like the Big Red Machine.

IslandRed
04-10-2012, 09:48 PM
Even more truthfully, I don't like long contracts. Frankly, I think it's kind of counter-intuitive the way our baseball contracts work. You're paying players cheaply during the prime of their careers, and by the time they hit the market when they're inevitably going to begin their decline, you're paying an insane amount of money. It really doesn't make sense. But despite my fondness for the Tampa Bay Rays' approach (developing your own players and unloading them a year in advance for more top tier talent), sooner or later you've got to be able to step up to the plate.

Nicely said. It goes without saying the Tampa Bay theory is great if you can do it, but if a team is only going to get four years of so of solid production from a player it develops (allowing for some rookie struggles and being dealt a year before free agency to maximize return), the development pipeline had better be a continuous torrent. Which is easier said than done once a team gets decent and stops drafting in the top five every year.

At the same time, we can't buy the whole team at market prices and never will be able to do so. Like all but a few franchises, we're somewhere in the middle. We need a continuous flow of good young talent, we keep around some of the productive veterans, and hope that when we place big bets that we back the right horses.

Hoosier Red
04-11-2012, 12:59 PM
Nicely said. It goes without saying the Tampa Bay theory is great if you can do it, but if a team is only going to get four years of so of solid production from a player it develops (allowing for some rookie struggles and being dealt a year before free agency to maximize return), the development pipeline had better be a continuous torrent. Which is easier said than done once a team gets decent and stops drafting in the top five every year.

At the same time, we can't buy the whole team at market prices and never will be able to do so. Like all but a few franchises, we're somewhere in the middle. We need a continuous flow of good young talent, we keep around some of the productive veterans, and hope that when we place big bets that we back the right horses.


I think the Tampa Bay model is fine except it pretty much requires absolute perfect execution and there is no trophy at the end of the year for most wins/payroll.

The St. Louis model has a lot more margin for error if you have the revenues to support it. How many times have we thought the Cardinals were grossly overpaying for older guys in the last 7 or 8 years, but they have 3 division titles, 4 playoff births and a couple of world series.

Roy Tucker
04-11-2012, 02:31 PM
Fantastic TR quote and equally good post.



I've had that TR speech hanging on my office wall for years. My kids get tired of me quoting it.