PDA

View Full Version : Is Bob Castellini the best small market owner in baseball?



cincrazy
07-26-2012, 01:12 PM
Do we have the best small market owner in baseball? When you consider how far this organization has come since he took over, the patience he's shown in his management staff in the front office and on the field, the deals for Votto, Phillips and the rest, the way they've worked their tails off to bring fans back into the park... is he the best? I say yes, with a nod towards Mark Annatasio in Milwaukee for a close second. Castellini has been incredible, and IMO, hasn't received enough kudos on this board for the job he's done since he took over.

True, we like and respect him. But I think by the time his ownership tenure is complete, we could revere him. He is literally the perfect owner for this ballclub, and the Reds struck gold when he took the reins.

dougdirt
07-26-2012, 01:16 PM
Detroit isn't exactly a large market, but they sure spend like it. So I will say no, but that isn't a knock on Bob, just that the guy in Detroit does an outstanding job.

Benihana
07-26-2012, 01:21 PM
Do we consider Texas, Detroit and St Louis small markets?

I also love what Tampa has done, although one could easily argue that's more the front office team than it is the owner (although Friedman came with Sternberg).

Regardless, it's hard not to like what Castellini has done here. Here's to hoping for continued success!

WMR
07-26-2012, 01:23 PM
He's better than pathetic Lindner, but he still hasn't won anything, so no.

dougdirt
07-26-2012, 01:23 PM
Do we consider Texas, Detroit and St Louis small markets?

I also love what Tampa has done, although one could easily argue that's more the front office team than it is the owner (although Friedman came with Sternberg).

Regardless, it's hard not to like what Castellini has done here. Here's to hoping for continued success!

This all too.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2012, 01:23 PM
My vote would go to Tampa' owner. They have done a great job in a real small market. I don't consider Cincinnati a small baseball market anyway, more middle of the road. Castellini has done very well, just not quite the best.

cumberlandreds
07-26-2012, 01:24 PM
If you consider St. Louis a small market then they are easily the best. Castellini has done a near miraclelous job at Cincy. He's taken a franchise that was nearly dead and spent the money to make them winners once again. The job isn't finished but it's heading that way.

cincrazy
07-26-2012, 01:25 PM
I would consider Cincy in a smaller market than Detroit or St. Louis. But of course, that's all subjective.

George Anderson
07-26-2012, 01:27 PM
I will let you know in November.

tommycash
07-26-2012, 01:27 PM
Detroit isn't exactly a large market, but they sure spend like it. So I will say no, but that isn't a knock on Bob, just that the guy in Detroit does an outstanding job.

Detroit IS a large market team. The metro area has over 4 million people. I even read one report that has Detroit in a better market than Atlanta.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/368721-seattle-mariners-a-large-market-team-mlb-market-size-rankings

dougdirt
07-26-2012, 01:32 PM
Detroit IS a large market team. The metro area has over 4 million people. I even read one report that has Detroit in a better market than Atlanta.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/368721-seattle-mariners-a-large-market-team-mlb-market-size-rankings

Our metro area has 2.5 million people. So yeah, they are bigger than us. But it is a far cry from place like New York, Boston, LA, Chicago. And that link is just some dudes opinion and seems entirely based on money spent, not on market.

bucksfan2
07-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Detroit IS a large market team. The metro area has over 4 million people. I even read one report that has Detroit in a better market than Atlanta.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/368721-seattle-mariners-a-large-market-team-mlb-market-size-rankings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas

Going of of this I wouldn't exactly call Detroit, Dallas, or even Tampa small markets. I think you can consider Tampa a small market because they never have been a good draw (same could be said about Miami).

I would put the St. Louis ownership above the Reds right now. They have just had a longer period of success. I wouldn't call Tampa's ownership the best small market organizatoin. IMO they are a lot like the A's in which they have a good GM but an organization that isn't going to contribute a lot of money to the current club. Combine that with both organizations struggles to get a new stadium.

I think Bob is amongst one of the best in overall ownership. He allows the people he hires to do their job, stepped up and opened the pocket book to keep his stars, and understands how to build a ball club.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2012, 02:52 PM
The size of your market is not totally based on the number of people in your area. Your market size is based on the number of people who are interested in your product wherever they may be. This is why some smaller cities have a larger baseball market than some larger cities.

For example, Cincinnati is a much bigger major league baseball market than it is an NBA market despite the population being the same both ways.

A lot of times when you see an article about market sizes they are talking about the media market, which is basically how many TV viewers are in the viewing area for the local TV stations. That is a different animal than the local baseball team's market size.

In the Cincinnati region a high percentage of the population is interested in the Reds, plus there are many Reds fans scattered over large areas far from Cincinnati that are not included in the Cincinnati media market. Anybody that buys tickets, buys memorabilia, buys jerseys and hats, watches the games on TV or listens to the games on the radio ("consuming" the commercials and hence making the Reds' media contracts more lucrative) is part of the Reds' market and benefits the Reds financially no matter where they are located.

Compare that to teams like the Orioles, Marlins and Athletics that are based in cities where baseball is not as popular and those teams also do not have many fans outside their local markets either. They may also have other teams close by that are competing for the same fans. So now we can see how the size of the local population is only part of the story when it comes to market size.

westofyou
07-26-2012, 03:03 PM
Baseball Markets by Al Streit

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml



In the early part of the 21st century, Major League Baseball finds itself the professional sport confined almost entirely to the largest consolidated statistical metropolitan areas (CSMAs) in the United States and Canada. While the other three major professional team sports in North America have numerous franchises in metropolitan areas with fewer than two million people, only three major league baseball teams are situated in such locales: the Cincinnati Reds, Kansas City Royals and Milwaukee Brewers.

edabbs44
07-26-2012, 03:12 PM
The best is hard to quantify, but so far I like him on my team.

RedsMan3203
07-26-2012, 03:29 PM
No.... When you invest the type of money you did in Votto, Phillips, Brice, Cueto you are no longer a "small" market team....

reds44
07-26-2012, 03:31 PM
No.... When you invest the type of money you did in Votto, Phillips, Brice, Cueto you are no longer a "small" market team....
We're 21st in payroll with 76.3 million. We're a small market and small payroll team.

RedsMan3203
07-26-2012, 03:35 PM
We're 21st in payroll with 76.3 million. We're a small market and small payroll team.

How much is that going to climb over the next 2-5 years? Still don't think we are a small market team anymore...

SunDeck
07-26-2012, 03:36 PM
No idea if he's the best, but I'll tell you what, he's impressed me in the past and he's impressing me even more now. He's doing a good job. And I like his shoes.

bucksfan2
07-26-2012, 03:51 PM
How much is that going to climb over the next 2-5 years? Still don't think we are a small market team anymore...

They are absolutley a small market team. Someone who said Detroit wasn't a large market team but Detroit has 1.5m more people that the Cincy metro area. The thing that helps out the Cincinnati market is Dayton which is a Reds town and as of now they aren't considered party of the Cincy metro area.

Baseball salaries are exploding because of outside revenue sources. MLB TV/Radio, big time TV contracts, internet streaming, etc all are bringing in sources of revenue that will allow the Reds to up their payroll. If it were solely based upon ticket sales the Reds would never be able to compete.

I heard Billy Beane on the radio a number of years ago and he made a comment that with every new collective barganing agreement the smaller markets gain a little more control each time.

Brutus
07-26-2012, 04:14 PM
By Nielsen DMA size (MLB markets in bold)


Rank TV Market TV Homes
1 New York City 7,387,810
2 Los Angeles 5,569,780
3 Chicago 3,493,480
4 Philadelphia 2,993,370
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,571,310
6 S.F.-Oakland-S.J. 2,506,510
7 Boston 2,379,690
8 Washington D.C. 2,360,180
9 Atlanta 2,292,640
10 Houston 2,185,260
11 Detroit 1,842,650
12 Seattle-Tacoma 1,811,420
13 Phoenix 1,811,330
14 Tampa-St. Pete 1,788,240
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,721,940
16 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,583,400
17 Denver 1,548,570
18 Cleveland-Akron 1,514,170
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach 1,465,460
20 Sacramento-Modesto 1,388,570
21 St. Louis 1,253,920
22 Portland 1,190,010
23 Pittsburgh 1,171,490
24 Raleigh-Durham 1,143,420
25 Charlotte 1,140,900
26 Indianapolis 1,109,970
27 Baltimore 1,097,310
28 San Diego 1,077,600
29 Nashville 1,024,560
30 Hartford-New Haven 1,006,280
31 Kansas City 939,740
32 Columbus 932,680
33 Salt Lake City 927,540
34 Milwaukee 907,660
35 Cincinnati 896,090



By 2010 U.S. Census Combined Statistical Areas (MLB markets in bold)


Rank Combined Statistical Area 2010 Census
1 NYC-Newark-Bridgeport 22,085,649
2 L.A.-Long Beach-Riverside 17,877,006
3 Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City 9,686,021
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Va. 8,572,971
5 Boston-Worcester-Manchester 7,559,060
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose 7,468,390
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth 6,731,317
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland 6,533,683
9 Houston-Baytown-Huntsville 6,051,363
10 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville 5,618,431
11 Detroit-Warren-Flint 5,218,852
12 Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 4,199,312
13 Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud 3,615,902
14 Denver-Aurora-Boulder 3,090,874
15 St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington 2,878,255
16 Cleveland-Akron-Elyria 2,881,937
17 Orlando-Deltona-Daytona Beach 2,818,120
18 Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Yuba City 2,461,780
19 Pittsburgh-New Castle 2,447,393
20 Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury 2,402,623
21 Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington 2,172,191
22 Kansas City-Overland Park 2,104,853
23 Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus 2,080,782
24 Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe 2,071,052
25 Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump 1,995,215
26 Austin-Round Rock-Marble Falls 1,759,039
27 Raleigh-Durham-Cary 1,749,525
28 Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield 1,744,886
29 Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha 1,751,316
30 Nashville–Murfreesboro–Columbia 1,670,890
31 Greensboro–Winston-Salem–High Point 1,589,200
32 Louisville–Elizabethtown–Scottsburg 1,427,483
33 Oklahoma City-Shawnee 1,322,429
34 Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic 1,330,809
35 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland 1,321,557

Unassisted
07-26-2012, 05:37 PM
By Nielsen DMA size (MLB markets in bold)

This is the list I always use in comparing sports markets. TV money is based on TV market size, so given the importance of TV money to a MLB team's budget, this is the list that matters.

backbencher
07-26-2012, 06:25 PM
There is no sensible definition of "small market MLB team" that does not include the Reds.

Anyone who is arguing that the Reds are emerging from "small market" status should instead be joining the chorus of hosannahs for Castellini maximizing the resources for a team that has tha status.

I can't vote him "best" without analysis, but it's pretty clear that he is a very, very good owner in all of the ways that you would want him to be.

Brutus
07-26-2012, 06:39 PM
This is the list I always use in comparing sports markets. TV money is based on TV market size, so given the importance of TV money to a MLB team's budget, this is the list that matters.

Same here, although I do think CBA/CBSA size is somewhat relevant too only because attendance is obviously an important factor in a club's revenue stream. But you're right, TV networks negotiate contracts primarily on the size of the home market, so I would agree that should be the list used first and foremost.

BCubb2003
07-26-2012, 07:14 PM
I think the markets are mostly financial, but partly cultural.

There's the Mega Market: Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers.

Major Metro: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Toronto, Atlanta (used to be mega when it had a Superstation).

Sun Belt: Miami, Tampa Bay, Houston, Texas, Arizona.

Midwest Industrial: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati.

Westward: Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City, White Sox, Denver.

Pacific Coast: San Diego, Anaheim, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle.

You can overachieve or underachieve in any of these.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2012, 07:29 PM
This is the list I always use in comparing sports markets. TV money is based on TV market size, so given the importance of TV money to a MLB team's budget, this is the list that matters.

It is an important factor, but it leaves out so much information that it is an incomplete and sometimes misleading way to look at market size. TV money is not based on market size, it is based on how many people actually watch the games. Cincinnati has one of the highest viewership rates (top 3 I think!), so even though there are fewer people in the Cincy TV market there are actually more people watching the games than quite a few other cities. Advertisers don't pay TV stations based on how many people are in the city, they pay TV stations based on how many people are watching that channel. Similarly, the Reds don't negotiate their TV contract based on how many people live in the media market, they negotiate based on how many people actually watch the games. That is a key difference. Population figures are less important than several other factors when calculating a market size. As explained previously, a baseball team's real market extends far beyond their local media market and this is especially true for the Reds.

Cincinnati can be considered the smallest local media market in MLB, yet the Reds are 17th in attendance, top 3 in viewership rates, probably top 3 in radio listening rates and score well in the middle of the pack in almost every revenue category. Thinking of the Reds as a financially disadvantaged small market team is selling the Reds way short of reality. The Reds are a mid-market team that is highly profitable, one of the more profitable teams in the league. The Reds are not hamstrung by a revenue disparity like the Rays, Padres, Athletics, Royals and Marlins. They are much better off than several other teams.

If the Reds were such a small market team as so many people think they are, then the Reds would not be ranked in the 15-20 range in the league in the revenue, attendance, payroll and profitability categories. The Reds will never be able to spend like the Yankees, Red Sox or Phillies but market size is clearly not an excuse for the Reds despite what we were led to believe in the Lindner ownership era.

If you define "small market" as meaning one of the bottom half in total team revenue, then yes the Reds are small market (barely). If you define "small market" as meaning a team that has insufficient revenue to field a competitive team for any length of time then the Reds are definitely not anywhere close to being a small market team.

The Reds' TV contract is up soon and their next contract is expected to be MUCH larger than the last one, which is the reason why it is believed the Reds were able to confidently sign Votto and Phillips to expensive contract extensions. We should be looking forward to a Reds payroll in excess of $100 million starting in 2016 and going up steadily from there. By the time Votto's contract expires when he is 40 the Reds' payroll will likely be double what it is now.

I think Castellini has done a good job since buying the team and a strong case can be made that he is one of the better owners in the league. The team has improved on the field, the farm system has flourished, the value of the franchise has exploded and the owners have been making very large profits every year despite the economy. Things are looking good in Reds Country.

Brutus
07-26-2012, 07:49 PM
It is an important factor, but it leaves out so much information that it is an incomplete and sometimes misleading way to look at market size. TV money is not based on market size, it is based on how many people actually watch the games. Cincinnati has one of the highest viewership rates (top 3 I think!), so even though there are fewer people in the Cincy TV market there are actually more people watching the games than quite a few other cities. Advertisers don't pay TV stations based on how many people are in the city, they pay TV stations based on how many people are watching that channel. Similarly, the Reds don't negotiate their TV contract based on how many people live in the media market, they negotiate based on how many people actually watch the games. That is a key difference. Population figures are less important than several other factors when calculating a market size. As explained previously, a baseball team's real market extends far beyond their local media market and this is especially true for the Reds.

Cincinnati can be considered the smallest local media market in MLB, yet the Reds are 17th in attendance, top 3 in viewership rates, probably top 3 in radio listening rates and score well in the middle of the pack in almost every revenue category. Thinking of the Reds as a financially disadvantaged small market team is selling the Reds way short of reality. The Reds are a mid-market team that is highly profitable, one of the more profitable teams in the league. The Reds are not hamstrung by a revenue disparity like the Rays, Padres, Athletics, Royals and Marlins. They are much better off than several other teams.

If the Reds were such a small market team as so many people think they are, then the Reds would not be ranked in the 15-20 range in the league in the revenue, attendance, payroll and profitability categories. The Reds will never be able to spend like the Yankees, Red Sox or Phillies but market size is clearly not an excuse for the Reds despite what we were led to believe in the Lindner ownership era.

If you define "small market" as meaning one of the bottom half in total team revenue, then yes the Reds are small market (barely). If you define "small market" as meaning a team that has insufficient revenue to field a competitive team for any length of time then the Reds are definitely not anywhere close to being a small market team.

The Reds' TV contract is up soon and their next contract is expected to be MUCH larger than the last one, which is the reason why it is believed the Reds were able to confidently sign Votto and Phillips to expensive contract extensions. We should be looking forward to a Reds payroll in excess of $100 million starting in 2016 and going up steadily from there. By the time Votto's contract expires when he is 40 the Reds' payroll will likely be double what it is now.

I think Castellini has done a good job since buying the team and a strong case can be made that he is one of the better owners in the league. The team has improved on the field, the farm system has flourished, the value of the franchise has exploded and the owners have been making very large profits every year despite the economy. Things are looking good in Reds Country.

While you are correct that advertisers pay based on how many people are watching the games, it is incorrect to say that TV money is based on how many people are watching the games.

As someone with a background in broadcasting, broadcast journalism and did one of my major internships in this department, I can assure you that advertising money for a TV network is not the biggest factor in revenue.

For over-the-air networks such as NBC, ABC, etc., advertising dollars can make up sometimes 65-70 percent of the total revenue a network earns. Ratings, then, become huge because advertisers are paying sometimes $20 per thousand viewers for sporting events for a single 30-second spot. However, with regional sporting networks, this is often the other way around.

Cable operators are paying these networks 'x' cents per subscriber per month to carry the network. In the case of FS Ohio, for every person that merely carries Fox Sports Ohio on their television package, the cable operator is paying the network nearly $3 per month per subscriber. That's $36 per year per person. For networks such as this, they're getting probably 70-75 percent of their revenue from subscriber fees, and only about a quarter from actual television advertising.

Thus, I assure you that TV money from local baseball deals are not generated centrally from advertising. Why do you suppose Cincinnati has one of the lowest-paying local TV deals in the majors despite their high TV ratings? It's for the exact reason I mentioned... because advertising isn't paying the majority of the bills for FS Ohio. Cable operators are.

Networks that carry MLB locally merely need to leverage themselves onto basic or expanded basic cable packages. If they manage to do so, having high television ratings is gravy.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2012, 08:00 PM
While you are correct that advertisers pay based on how many people are watching the games, it is incorrect to say that TV money is based on how many people are watching the games.

As someone with a background in broadcasting, broadcast journalism and did one of my major internships in this department, I can assure you that advertising money for a TV network is not the biggest factor in revenue.

For over-the-air networks such as NBC, ABC, etc., advertising dollars can make up sometimes 65-70 percent of the total revenue a network earns. Ratings, then, become huge because advertisers are paying sometimes $20 per thousand viewers for sporting events for a single 30-second spot. However, with regional sporting networks, this is often the other way around.

Cable operators are paying these networks 'x' cents per subscriber per month to carry the network. In the case of FS Ohio, for every person that merely carries Fox Sports Ohio on their television package, the cable operator is paying the network nearly $3 per month per subscriber. That's $36 per year per person. For networks such as this, they're getting probably 70-75 percent of their revenue from subscriber fees, and only about a quarter from actual television advertising.

Thus, I assure you that TV money from local baseball deals are not generated centrally from advertising. Why do you suppose Cincinnati has one of the lowest-paying local TV deals in the majors despite their high TV ratings? It's for the exact reason I mentioned... because advertising isn't paying the majority of the bills for FS Ohio. Cable operators are.

Networks that carry MLB locally merely need to leverage themselves onto basic or expanded basic cable packages. If they manage to do so, having high television ratings is gravy.

That's a good point. The Reds top 3 overall viewership percentages would then be even more beneficial and contribute even more to the Reds not being a small market team then right? If they are watching the games they must be a Fox Sports Ohio subscriber and watching the commercials too. A higher percentage of fans watching the games means more people must be carrying that Fox Sports Ohio package on their cable/satellite. Higher viewership rates lead to both higher advertising dollars and higher subscriber dollars and therefore makes the Reds TV contract even more valuable to Fox Sports Ohio. The advertising example I made was just an example of how the population figures are not the most important criteria, and this is another reason why.

Perhaps the reason the Reds TV contract was negotiated at a low price last time was because FSO did not have many subscribers at the time. The major reason that network has been so successful is the TV contract. How many of us would ever watch FSO if the Reds were not on that channel? I never watch anything else on that channel. If FSO loses the Reds TV contract that channel will likely go out of business. They have to pay up or go home. There is every reason to believe the Reds next TV deal will be many times larger than their current one. TV contracts around the league have been skyrocketing since the Reds negotiated their deal several years ago. For example the small market-low revenue Padres' deal is expected to take them to somewhere around $30-50 million per year on average for the next 20 years -- and they have one of the lowest viewership rates in the league. Whatever it ends up being it will be huge compared to the current deal.

Brutus
07-26-2012, 08:21 PM
That's a good point. The Reds top 3 overall viewership percentages would then be even more beneficial and contribute even more to the Reds not being a small market team then right? If they are watching the games they must be a Fox Sports Ohio subscriber and watching the commercials too. A higher percentage of fans watching the games means more people must be carrying that Fox Sports Ohio package on their cable/satellite. Higher viewership rates lead to both higher advertising dollars and higher subscriber dollars and therefore makes the Reds TV contract even more valuable to Fox Sports Ohio. The advertising example I made was just an example of how the population figures are not the most important criteria, and this is another reason why.

Perhaps the reason the Reds TV contract was negotiated at a low price last time was because FSO did not have many subscribers at the time. The major reason that network has been so successful is the TV contract. How many of us would ever watch FSO if the Reds were not on that channel? I never watch anything else on that channel. If FSO loses the Reds TV contract that channel will likely go out of business. They have to pay up or go up. There is every reason to believe the Reds next TV deal will be many times larger than their current one. TV contracts around the league have been skyrocketing since the Reds negotiated their deal several years ago. For example the Padres deal is expected to take them to somewhere around $30-50 million per year on average for the next 20 years -- and they have one of the lowest viewership rates in the league. Whatever it ends up being it will be huge compared to the current deal.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the next Reds' deal will go up a lot higher. I think the San Diego deal is the perfect example because the Padres are neither in a large market nor do they have high ratings.

But I will add that I feel TV market size does matter to a large degree because each of the 256 markets are negotiated slightly different for each network. So FS Ohio would probably be paid more per subscriber in the Cincinnati DMA than it would in the Dayton DMA, on top of having more cable subscribers. The other consideration is that FS Ohio might demand that operators in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland carry the channel on expanded basic, whereas perhaps Dayton might only be required to carry it on premium or sports tier. That's not the case in this situation, but it's often, in general, the way they negotiate. Long story short, what I mean to say is that market size does actually matter because each market is negotiated individually for regional networks.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2012, 08:40 PM
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the next Reds' deal will go up a lot higher. I think the San Diego deal is the perfect example because the Padres are neither in a large market nor do they have high ratings.

But I will add that I feel TV market size does matter to a large degree because each of the 256 markets are negotiated slightly different for each network. So FS Ohio would probably be paid more per subscriber in the Cincinnati DMA than it would in the Dayton DMA, on top of having more cable subscribers. The other consideration is that FS Ohio might demand that operators in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland carry the channel on expanded basic, whereas perhaps Dayton might only be required to carry it on premium or sports tier. That's not the case in this situation, but it's often, in general, the way they negotiate. Long story short, what I mean to say is that market size does actually matter because each market is negotiated individually for regional networks.

Yeah the San Diego TV deal might even be a conservative comparison since the Reds have much higher ratings than the Padres. Ratings x Population is the key. Having a large population doesn't matter if the ratings suck, but if your team has good ratings it can compensate for a small population and that is the scenario the Reds are in. Cincinnati is really a small media market but fortunately a mid-size baseball market.

It remains to be seen how large the new TV contract will be, but the Reds have already committed themselves to spending a good chunk of it to pay Joey Votto for the next 12 years. There should be plenty left though to keep a better team on the field for a long time -- if they spend it wisely!

RedlegJake
07-26-2012, 09:46 PM
I voted no because of the finality of the question. Is he the BEST not is he a very good small market owner?

camisadelgolf
07-26-2012, 11:40 PM
I think the best owner for the fans is the one who gets the most resulted. However, I think the owner's ultimate goal is to get as much money as possible, and some of them believe winning solves that more than anything.

cincinnati chili
07-28-2012, 11:56 AM
He is one of the most aggressive small market owners. His aggressiveness really paid off with Chapman already. Some say his aggressiveness will backfire with the Votto contract, but I don't agree. Some say his aggressiveness will backfire with the Phillips contract, and I strongly agree.

Aggressiveness can be great, but it can also be catastrophic. '98 Marlins. Texas in the A-Rod years. The Rockies in the Hampton/Neagle years. If the big TV deal doesn't come through, you can bet the results will be disastrous. It'll be Votto and the eight dwarfs for about a decade, much like Helton was surrounded by chaff in Denver for oh so long.

I'm making the assumption in all these cases that Bob had final say in all these deals. If not, then Jocketty is the aggressive one. If we weren't in first place, you can bet he'd be getting killed for the Latos deal.