Re: Why The reds lose
Why the REDS lose?
It varies, but to me it's very simple.
They won under Schott: 1 World Series, 1 playoff experience into the 2nd Round ('95), 1-game short of a playoff ('99), many 2nd place finishes under Rose, the best record in baseball another year, but they got screwed by the strike and finished 2nd in both split-season standings.
After Schott was railroaded out of town because the owners didn't want a woman among their group, the banana-king came aboard and his cheapness crippled the team. He idiotically invested a large piece of the pie into two position players in Junior and Larkin. That spelled doom until those contracts were over with.
After the banana-king left and Castellini came aboard, everything has been uphill ever since.
It takes time to rebuild a franchise when it's been completely destroyed. Thank you, Jim and Carl. Give the team 5 years and then ask the question, "Why do the REDS lose?"
What year is this that Castellini and his group has owned the REDS?
The only setback has been the hiring of Baker. If we didn't have Baker, we'd be winning this season, Dickerson would be more developed because Patterson wouldn't have gotten any at-bats last season, and there wouldn't have been the signing of Taveras because Dickerson would have had the Full-time job of CF from the get-go, plus Taveras was Baker's idea, not Walt's, and I don't care what anybody says about that. I disagree with you.
So, the REDS have only had a hiccup under Castellini, and the Carl Lindner regime was a total fiasco from the get-go.
The day Baker leaves is the day they win. I imagine it will be hard though for Castellini to fire Baker. This could get really ugly as good seasons get wasted (Dickerson and Hanigan this season, and possibly Dickerson and Hanigan and others next season)