Originally posted by letsgojunior
Excellent column Edskin.
The "small market" excuse for mediocre seasons no longer works for me. Four of the seven teams that had lower payrolls than us in 2002 (Oakland, Minnesota, Montreal, Florida), all had better records than us. Each of these markets is equal to or in some cases signficantly worse than Cincinnati.
Oh, lgj, I have so much to teach you. What you say is true, but go ahead and present both sides to that story.
1. Let's include 1999 and 2000 in the analysis and let's see how the Reds compare with other small market teams, and even big market teams, in those years.
2. Share with us how many teams with higher payrolls last year had a worse record than the Reds.
To be totally fair, let's look at the last 5 years combined, total reg season w/l records and total cumulative payroll. Then let's see how things stack up - Oakland will be better, but I'm not sure if any other small mkt teams will fair better than the Reds. And I'm guessing there are several high payroll teams that have won fewer games than the Reds.
Point is, if this is your argument, I think you're supporting the Reds without even realizing it. Don't even consider discounting the importance of market size - it is a HUGE factor.
ps Not to mention that all 7 of those teams were within $10 million of the Reds $45 million payroll. In 2002, we weren't talking HUGE payroll differences between the Reds and the bottom of the league.
ps2 Not to mention that we've had the misfortune of having our best everyday player hurt for the past 2 years, a misfortune that few small market teams can survive.