Bob Castellini Is Still A Believer

[RedTeamGo!]

They're trying to build a winner and they don't know how. In place of that we get a collection of aphorisms.



Given that the team is playing in front of dozens, I know what I'd advise him to say: this isn't nearly good enough, fans deserve better, everything's on the table. He's the owner, so he doesn't need to get specific. What he should do is demonstrate he shares the fans' anger and that the organization is open to making drastic changes.

Yup.

“I don’t give a ****” was probably unwise at this point in time.

[M2]

So, basically, Kraft meddled in a personnel decision.

Yes, he wants to ride the GOAT all the way to the end. Everything else he leaves alone.

[Todd Gack]

He’s the owner of the team. You don’t think Robert Kraft has any say in football decisions with the Patriots? Of course they’re going to give input.

BobC isn’t cheap considering the market size. They’ve already had a good run under his ownership. Everybody breathe.

Meh. . . .

[Edskin]

First, a simple comment: being a believer and having faith doesn't inform you about reality. BobC can believe all he wants about the potential for Reds success with this group, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Second, I noticed this:



While I share a fervent hope that many of the teenage Latin prospects do in fact become productive major leaguers, the fact that BobC believes this will happen shows a tremendous disconnect between his expectations and the reality of baseball. The reality is that very few if any of the people listed on that sheet of paper -- I don't even have to look at the names to know this -- will ever sniff the major leagues, much less become good major leaguers. That right there tells me BobC doesn't know what he doesn't know about baseball, which means he doesn't know that he shouldn't stay out of baseball decisions. This is worrying.

Walking around with photos of Latin teens can get you in trouble.... just ask Chip...

[RedsManRick]

No owner thinks he's overly involved, so I don't expect him to admit as such. But the lack of self-awareness in this statement is breathtaking:

“No. It’s bull. We make decisions collectively. When we meet, we all give our opinions. I will come in and say, this is what I think we ought to do. If I don’t get a lot of opposition, we make the decision based on what I say. I do not get overly involved in our operations.’’

The thing is, I generally agree with him. Holding up the ARI-ATL trade as a point of comparison is silly. It's like asking why you didn't draft Albert Pujols. That's not to say there's not a legitimate line of questioning around being more aggressive on the trade market or the possible criticism that the Reds have systematically over-valued their players and that's why trade offers seem so bad. But yikes, he does not come off well at all.

[Chip R]

We don't want ownership to get involved until we do.

Let's say, for example, Dick got it into his mind to trade Votto and Senzel for not much in return. But Bob is against it. Should Bob interfere or just not get involved?

[OhioRiverBarge]

I for one am willing to forgive him of his many transgressions when he opens the coffers for Harper and Machado next year.

[RedTeamGo!]

We don't want ownership to get involved until we do.

Let's say, for example, Dick got it into his mind to trade Votto and Senzel for not much in return. But Bob is against it. Should Bob interfere or just not get involved?

In that case he should fire the GM immediately and put someone in place who isn’t the worst GM in history.

[WrongVerb]

We don't want ownership to get involved until we do.

Let's say, for example, Dick got it into his mind to trade Votto and Senzel for not much in return. But Bob is against it. Should Bob interfere or just not get involved?

Well, look at the weak return for Chapman when ownership did get involved. It's probably better they stay out of it, up to the point that it affects profitability.

[membengal]

We don't want ownership to get involved until we do.

Let's say, for example, Dick got it into his mind to trade Votto and Senzel for not much in return. But Bob is against it. Should Bob interfere or just not get involved?

Not get involved. Either you've hired the right people to run the baseball side or you haven't.

[RedTeamGo!]

Well, look at the weak return for Chapman when ownership did get involved. It's probably better they stay out of it, up to the point that it affects profitability.

The Chapman trade, while horrible, is very unique. If Cast called up walt and said “either trade him immediately or cut him. I don’t want someone that physically assaults his girlfriend on my team” can we really fault him from a moral standpoint? I’m not defending the trade, however, every time that trade comes up I think “apples and rubber duckies.” The yankees absolutely got more for him, no doubt, but I think they had more leverage. Again, horrible trade. Not arguing otherwise.

[Griffey012]

We don't want ownership to get involved until we do.

Let's say, for example, Dick got it into his mind to trade Votto and Senzel for not much in return. But Bob is against it. Should Bob interfere or just not get involved?

Bob should have never hired Dick, or immediately fired him.

[Tracy Jones]

Kraft wasn't going to pay eight digits for a backup QB. That's why they had to make the deal. Brady was having an MVP season. Nothing was negatively affecting him. Possibly Belichick was willing to entertain switching horses after the season and Kraft wasn't. Yet Kraft pretty famously doesn't meddle in player decisions. The Patriots have send fan favorites shipping without remorse.

Bill Belichick has been a proven talent evaluator for over 30 years and has been a part of 7 championships. If/when things go sour or/when Belichick retires, things will change (even though Kraft has already “meddled”) How do I know this? Because they ALL do. They can’t help themselves because it goes against everything that made them successful in the first place. There are degrees of “meddling,” but they all do it.

And yes, setting a budget is an indirect way of “meddling” with personnel. Carl Linder can set his budget as a way of saying “this is the type of team we’re going to have” just as George Steinbrenner did with his budget, which in essence told the GM to go out and get everyone possible.

[BCubb2003]

The Chapman case was an anomaly, a non-baseball decision. There’s a school of thought that says it was the honorable thing to do.

The Frazier case is a better example. Even then, there would have an uproar over spoiling a rare bright spot.

[Boston Red]

He’s not going to sell, maybe he will die soon.

Damn, relax, it's just a game.