Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 15 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 263

Thread: Stanton a Ratbird?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member corkedbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    10,278

    Stanton a Ratbird?

    A scenario I do not care for. It would be nice if just once the Reds didn't have to go into the offseason scrounging for crumbs.

  2. Likes:

    REDREAD (11-05-2017)

  3. #2
    Overton Window Breaker WrongVerb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    American Canyon, CA
    Posts
    12,109

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    We need an off-season discussion thread.

    That said, Stanton has a full no trade and it's been said he only wants to go to the west coast.
    Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. -- Mahatma Gandhi

  4. #3
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    36,449

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by WrongVerb View Post
    We need an off-season discussion thread.

    That said, Stanton has a full no trade and it's been said he only wants to go to the west coast.
    I assume his stance on that changes when he realizes there may not be a viable west coast suitor for his services.
    Wait until the year after next year.

  5. #4
    Daffy Duck RedTeamGo!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    10,792

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I assume his stance on that changes when he realizes there may not be a viable west coast suitor for his services.
    The dodgers?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by corkedbat View Post
    A scenario I do not care for. It would be nice if just once the Reds didn't have to go into the offseason scrounging for crumbs.
    What do you want exactly. The Reds to trade for a $300 million outfielder?
    What would you say.....ya do here?

  6. #5
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    48,467

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by corkedbat View Post
    A scenario I do not care for. It would be nice if just once the Reds didn't have to go into the offseason scrounging for crumbs.
    You should probably try to switch teams, then. The Reds are never going to be players in the free agent market unless baseball changes the entire way teams make and share money.

  7. Likes:

    OGB (11-13-2017),RedsRocker (11-05-2017)

  8. #6
    Member corkedbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    10,278

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    You should probably try to switch teams, then. The Reds are never going to be players in the free agent market unless baseball changes the entire way teams make and share money.

    Not talking about free agency only, just about always playing the poor relation. Can't convince me that a 3rd-tier starter or bargain bin middle reliever is the most they can sign OR trade for. Not talking about a Stanton, Darvish, Arietta or even a Martinez-level trade/signing. They're at rock-bottom and still can't afford to add any significant pieces by the way they talk.
    Last edited by corkedbat; 11-05-2017 at 02:55 AM.

  9. Likes:

    mth123 (11-05-2017),REDREAD (11-05-2017)

  10. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    757

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    You should probably try to switch teams, then. The Reds are never going to be players in the free agent market unless baseball changes the entire way teams make and share money.
    lol The Reds can be players if they want they choose not to especially with changes in the last collective bargaining agreement

  11. #8
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    48,467

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by InsaneinthBrame View Post
    lol The Reds can be players if they want they choose not to especially with changes in the last collective bargaining agreement
    Sure. Every team COULD BE. But they aren't going to start taking losses in money. Just like everyone else. So, realistically, the Reds are NEVER going to be players in the free agent market. I'm sorry that I wasn't specific enough in my first post.

  12. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    757

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    The Reds can spend a lot more than the fans realize. The Reds had a 105 Million payroll before the last national broadcast rights which created an additional 30 million per year per team.
    Last year MLB sold 75% share in BamTech to Disney for 2.5 billion this is 80 million per team
    Revenue Sharing (30% of all local revenue) for the Reds amount doubled this last year because the money is only going to 17 teams (17 smallest markets) the Top 13 Markets are no longer getting any of this money. In 2016 the A's received 35 million that means that the Reds at least got that much in 2016. With the change in the CBA it means that the Reds are getting at least 70 million in 2017 the smaller the market the bigger share they get in this new plan. This money has to be spent to improve team performance
    The Reds attendance has shrunk so that revenue is down but they got new TV deal so I expect they balance each other out.
    They are also getting Revenue from Baseball Advanced media (owned by all 30 mlb teams)
    Mlb also has added more sponsorship money every year (this last year they added 600 million in new ad contracts)

    So bottom line I see that the Reds have an added 65 or more million in yearly revenue from 2013 when they were spending 106 million so a 140-150 million payroll would not be unreasonable in my mind. Our payroll is projecting to 88 million at this point (68 for 5 players on contract, 11 for 5 in arbitration 9 for 15 players making minimum) so we could spend 50 million per year on FA. Edit some of the 65 million per year goes to analytics,draft, international sgnings and player development (20-30 million)
    Last edited by InsaneinthBrame; 11-07-2017 at 01:29 AM.

  13. Likes:

    REDREAD (11-13-2017)

  14. #10
    Member Kinsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,513

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Castellini & the Williams brothers took out 100M$ in debt when they purchased the club, the Reds are paying that down now. It's not unlike the Marlins & Astros sales, the only difference is when they decided to pay it down - right away or wait.

    Reds money from Bamtech was supposedly given to the minority shareholders as they'd never received a dividend from owning shares in the club.

    Below is how the team's ownership is split.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This team's primary owner is Bob Castellini. Castellini has one of the smaller ownership positions among MLB teams’ primary owners though.

    The shares Castellini and the Williams brothers initially purchased for 270 M$ (or roughly 70% of the franchise) came from Carl Lindner, Louise Nippert, William Reik, George Strike, Great American Insurance Company, and the Gannett Co - who combined owned nearly 100% of the club at that time. The Lindner family - 9%, the Nippert family - 6%, Reik - 6%, and Strike - 9% retained the other outstanding 30% of shares after Castellini's purchase (but the Nippert's eventually sold their share to Frank Cohen and Strike's shares were also sold upon his death).

    Big Bob's group (he and the Williams brothers) then immediately turned around and sold a large chunk of their shares to 10 minority owner groups as non-voting shares. Each of them received approximately 3% of the club for a 6.5 M$ investment fee. Leaving Castellini and the Williams' controlling roughly 40% of the team. The sales were part of the original financing plan Castellini laid out to MLB in his bid for the club. It helped him reduce his debt load down to approximately 35 M$, which was initially 100 M$ of the 270 M$ purchase price.

    In all there are 19 different shareholders with at least a 3% stake. Big Bob is the majority shareholder at 15% and he is also listed as the primary owner with MLB, the other 18 shareholders have a smaller stake.

    Reds Ownership Shares as of 12/15/16:

    Bob Castellini (15%), W. Joseph Williams (12%), Tom Williams (12%), Lindner Reds Baseball LLC (9%), Frank Cohen (6%), William Reik Jr. (6%), Buy Buy Baseball LLC (3%), EMK Investment Company LLC (3%), Larry Sheakley (3%), Jeff Wyler (3%), Harry Fath (3%), Jeff Gendell (3%), AACE LLC (3%), HKR Baseball LLC (3%), Ron Sargent (3%), John Wyant (3%), Queen City Diamond LLC (3%), Heading for Home LLC (3%), and Art Hauser (3%).

    LLC's Above Broken Down -->
    Lindner Reds Baseball LLC - Carl Lindner III and Craig Lindner.
    Buy Buy Baseball LLC - Rick Steiner Trust, Jim Miller, Rocco Landesman, Gary Rabiner and Dale Rabiner.
    EMK Investment Company LLC - Steve Cobb and others.
    African American Capital Enterprises LLC - Edwin Riguad and others.
    HKR Baseball LLC - Joseph Rouse and others.
    Queen City Diamond LLC - George Vincent, Tom Neyer Jr., A.G. Lafley, Jim Johnson, Mike Ryan, Dinsmore & Shole, and Frank Woodside.
    Heading for Home LLC - David Drees and Ralph Drees.

    FYI: Since the initial purchase Castellini has reportedly expressed interest in buying ownership stakes if any investors decided to sell all or part of their interest in the team, but none of the owners of smaller stakes have seemed interested in doing so with the exception of the Nippert Trust in 2014.

  15. Likes:

    paintmered (11-09-2017),RED VAN HOT (11-07-2017),REDREAD (11-13-2017)

  16. #11
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    60,216

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Hasn't it been rumored Stanton won't approve a trade to anyone in the mid west?

    He'll be traded to the yankees for a bucket of day old shrimp.
    Go Gators!

  17. #12
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    12,362

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by KronoRed View Post
    Hasn't it been rumored Stanton won't approve a trade to anyone in the mid west?

    He'll be traded to the yankees for a bucket of day old shrimp.
    Marlins could do a lot with Shrimp

  18. Likes:

    dubc47834 (11-07-2017)

  19. #13
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    26,590

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    The Giants seem like good suitors too.

  20. #14
    Someday Never Comes mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    21,616

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer View Post
    The Giants seem like good suitors too.
    IT seems like a good fit unless the Marlins want actual young talent back. The cupboard is bare in SF. If it's a straight salary dump or if they could involve another team somehow, I could see the Giants as major players.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

  21. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    34

    Re: Stanton a Ratbird?

    Quote Originally Posted by KronoRed View Post
    Hasn't it been rumored Stanton won't approve a trade to anyone in the mid west?

    He'll be traded to the yankees for a bucket of day old shrimp.
    That’s what I thought, but according to Gammons he has only explicitly said he wouldn’t accept a trade to a rebuilding franchise.

    It appears that the rumors are substantial enough to suggest Stanton would accept a trade to StL.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | JaxRed | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | The Operator