Originally Posted by Nasty_Boy
I agree with 3 & 4, but not on 1 & 2. Isn't the idea of having more money being able to sign better players or keep the good players you already have? With the way free agency is set up and with the way players are being paid, only long term contracts will attract the players that other wise wouldn't come to Cincinnati.
I really don't remember any long-term signings that the Reds have truly regretted... Milton sucked but he was only here for 3 years. I think the key is not overpaying for mediocre players or players that are passed their prime.
Lets put it this way what long term deal has worked out for the Reds in recent years?
I say less long term deals, that doesnt mean zero at all.