Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

  1. #1
    Reds fan for life!!!! WVPacman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,955

    The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Let me start off by saying that I have been a die hard reds fan since I was six years old in 1980.I have to say watching my team lose over and over in the past 15 years is killing me.We have only made it to the playoffs one time and I think that was 95 and came with in one game of making it in 99 or 2000.This payroll that has gone from 40 mill a season to 75 mil a season is'nt going to cut it.We have to start spending money for better players than what we got!!! I wish we would start spending money and going after players like the cubs,dodger,braves,Cards,Stros and other teams.Those teams are in the chase every single season and theres nothing stoping the reds organization from doing the same thing.

    Everybody in the reds front office are millionares so you can't tell me that the main reason they don't spend money is b/c they can't afford it!! thats BS.The last two owners including the one we have now have done nothing but spend an average dollers on average players that can't win you nothing.I'll tell you what the reds organzation is starting to look like is the Pittsburg Pirates.We have a higher payroll but if you look at the two teams in the past 6-7 years theres hardly no difference record wise and payroll wise even thow our payroll has went up and the pirates payroll has went down.Even with that both teams have what you can say the same players(average at best)

    Our pitching whether it has been starting or bullpen has been terrible for years now.Our hitting has'nt been that much better b/c it is either a homerun or nothing and its been that way for the last decade.We don't have the batters that can play little ball,bunt a guy over,get a run in from third,get a guy to third,get a base hit when we need it.I can go on and on and it still leads us back to the same thing.If we ever want to win constantly we have to spend money to get better players in here.Sorry for the rant but watching my reds lose on a constant basis for over a decade is starting to get to me.
    I can spell,I just can't type!!

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,665

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Quote Originally Posted by WVPacman View Post
    Let me start off by saying that I have been a die hard reds fan since I was six years old in 1980.I have to say watching my team lose over and over in the past 15 years is killing me.We have only made it to the playoffs one time and I think that was 95 and came with in one game of making it in 99 or 2000. This payroll that has gone from 40 mill a season to 75 mil a season is'nt going to cut it.
    Then why have teams with far lesser payrolls been able to make the post-season, win a World Series, and consistently be competitive? Organizations like the A's, Twins, Marlins. Look at what organizations like Cleveland and Milwaukee have done? Why have teams with huge payrolls, like Baltimore, stink the place up?

    You think market size doesn't have anything to do with it, as far as being able to spend money? Take a look at the following list....

    Code:
    2006 MLB Team Payrolls
     
    Based Upon 2006 Season as of April 7, 2006
     
    Rank Team          Total Payroll  
    1 New York Yankees $194,663,079 
    2 Boston Red Sox $120,099,824 
    3 Los Angeles Angels $103,472,000 
    4 Chicago White Sox $102,750,667 
    5 New York Mets $101,084,963 
    6 Los Angeles Dodgers $98,447,187 
    7 Chicago Cubs $94,424,499 
    8 Houston Astros $92,551,503 
    9 Atlanta Braves $90,156,876 
    10 San Francisco Giants $90,056,419 
    11 St. Louis Cardinals $88,891,371 
    12 Philadelphia Phillies $88,273,333 
    13 Seattle Mariners $87,959,833 
    14 Detroit Tigers $82,612,866 
    15 Baltimore Orioles $72,585,582 
    16 Toronto Blue Jays $71,915,000 
    17 San Diego Padres $69,896,141 
    18 Texas Rangers $68,228,662 
    19 Minnesota Twins $63,396,006 
    20 Washington Nationals $63,143,000 
    21 Oakland Athletics $62,243,079 
    22 Cincinnati Reds $60,909,519 
    23 Arizona Diamondbacks $59,684,226 
    24 Milwaukee Brewers $57,568,333 
    25 Cleveland Indians $56,031,500 
    26 Kansas City Royals $47,294,000 
    27 Pittsburgh Pirates $46,717,750 
    28 Colorado Rockies $41,233,000 
    29 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $35,417,967 
    30 Florida Marlins $14,998,500



    We have to start spending money for better players than what we got!!! I wish we would start spending money and going after players like the cubs,dodger,braves,Cards,Stros and other teams.Those teams are in the chase every single season
    The Cubs are in the chase every season? That's news. Take a solid look at the Strohs and Cards. They have won previously, and do have solid GMs who had recognized talent and locked them up. They both are now facing aging teams whose payrolls are stretched to their limit.

    and theres nothing stoping the reds organization from doing the same thing.
    Yes there is. And it's all about revenue generating.

    It's funny. A couple years ago, many fans were saying this team would be competitive if they'd up the payroll around the 75-80 Mil range. Well they have. The year prior to opening of GABP our payroll was around 39 MIl. It has almost doubled in these few short years.

    Everybody in the reds front office are millionares so you can't tell me that the main reason they don't spend money is b/c they can't afford it!! thats BS.
    And the reason they are millionaires is because they are good businessmen. Show me one owner who spends money out of his own pocket/personal wealth in MLB? Even Steinbrenner doesn't. They rely on market-size and lucrative TV/cable deals, as well as other revenue generating mechanisms.

    And try explaining to your shareholders and board of directors that you're going to divert monies from those private enterprises into the the current "sinkhole" called MLB, and see what kind of responses they would get? What is their return going to be? Possibly the satisfaction of providing the fans a winning team? What if those shareholders could give a crap about baseball?

    We have a higher payroll but if you look at the two teams in the past 6-7 years theres hardly no difference record wise and payroll wise even thow our payroll has went up
    Which tells us what?

    #1 - we have/are spending.

    #2 - bad contracts and/or talent evaluation

    We have 20 Mil/yr tied up in just two players (Jr/Milton). And that is not counting previously bad multi-year contracts given out to guys like Graves, Casey, Larkin, and a few others. It was not money well spent by a team with limited financial resources. You have to be smarter.

    Take a good, hard look at the standing over the last several years. You seem to think this is problem only peculiar to the Reds organization. It's not. A majority of teams in MLB face either slim odds or impossibilty of making it into the post-season and/or fielding consistently competitive team as long as the huge revenue disparity exists.

    Those that have (as mentioned above), have done so because they have gotten inventive/creative.

    I like this article by George Will from a few years ago....

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will081202.asp

    George Will


    Suicide squeeze
    Major League Baseball's labor negotiations involve two paradoxes. The players' union's primary objective is to protect the revenues of a very few very rich owners -- principally, the Yankees'. The owners' primary objective is a more egalitarian distribution of wealth.

    The union believes that unconstrained spending by the richest three teams pulls up all payrolls. Most owners believe that baseball's problems -- competitive imbalance, the parlous financial conditions of many clubs -- result from large and growing disparities of what are mistakenly treated as "local" revenues.

    These disparities largely reflect differences in teams' broadcasting revenues. The Yankees' broadcasting revenues ($62 million) are more than those of seven other teams (Kansas City, Minnesota, Oakland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Florida, Milwaukee) combined.

    The owners' initial proposal included two recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics (George Mitchell, Paul Volcker, Yale's President Richard Levin and this columnist). One is increased revenue sharing (from 20 percent to 50 percent of so-called "local revenues"). The other, to slow payroll growth, is a 50 percent tax on the portion of any team's payroll in excess of $98 million. Neither recommendation involves a new or radical concept. Baseball has revenue sharing now. It had a luxury tax from 1997 through 1999.

    The union's initial proposal was to increase revenue sharing only to 22.5 percent, and no tax. The union likes the status quo. But this is the status quo: Of the 224 postseason games since the 1994 strike, 219 have been won by teams in the top two payroll quartiles. All World Series games since the strike have been won by teams in the top quartile. In 1991, 13 of the other 25 teams had payrolls at least 75 percent as large as the Yankees' payroll (which was smaller than Oakland's). Today, only four of the other 29 do. When the Yankees play the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, which they do 19 times this season, there is a $97 million payroll disparity ($135 million to $38 million). One day this May the Mets fielded a $63 million starting lineup against a $4 million Padres lineup.

    Unlike the NFL and the NBA, which adopted their basic economic arrangements after (and because of) the advent of television, baseball's economic model predates radio. And flight. And the internal combustion engine. Today, as when the National League was founded in 1879, locally generated revenues stay with the local owner.

    But the concept of "local revenues" is problematic, because no team sells a local product. To buy a team is not to buy an entitlement to all dollars generated by games in that market. Rather, it is to buy an association with MLB. All revenue streams of all teams flow from that association.
    As Clark Griffith (of the old Washington Senators family) says, suppose a store sells baseball caps with four different ornithological emblems: a Cardinal, an Oriole, a Blue Jay -- and a Goldfinch. The first three will sell much better than the fourth, and the value of those three derives from their association with MLB, which should receive at least 50 percent of those misnamed "local revenues," to enhance MLB's collective health -- particularly, competitive balance.

    Many players have scant knowledge of today's negotiations. On a team flight recently, a superstar, a very intelligent man, discussed the labor negotiations with a team executive. The player said: We will never accept a salary cap. He was startled to learn that no salary cap has been proposed for eight years.

    Players who disbelieve MLB's financial difficulties may be convinced by developments already underway. Attendance is down for the third consecutive season (5.7 percent this year, which means almost $80 million in lost ticket revenue alone). Four of the top five amateur players picked in the June draft remain unsigned as teams balk at the players' demands.
    The San Francisco Giants' payroll is $75 million, up from $65 million last year. Because of backloaded contracts, just keeping the current roster would make next year's payroll $85 million. But the Giants plan to trim to $70 million. This is a team averaging a league-best 38,658 fans per game in a park that seats 41,503 -- but a team paying $20 million yearly in interest on that park, which was built without public funds.
    Last edited by GAC; 05-13-2007 at 07:43 AM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  4. #3
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,665

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Here is another solid article from Maury Brown (Hardball Times)....

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...-day-payrolls/
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  5. #4
    smells of rich mahogany deltachi8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,001

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Its not how much you spend, it's how much you spend smartly.
    Nothing to see here. Please disperse.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1,180

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    The structure of paying the players will fix all of this and parity will ring, but until this happens, this will continue the way it is. Does MLB want to fix it is the question. I say, NO! Pud Selig is out the door in a couple of years and he is not going to do anything. As I read one player quote above, they will never agree to a salary cap and there you have it. They are spoiled and see all the money and will not relinquish such a thing.

    I saw an interview on Outside the Lines with Mitch "Wild Man" Williams talking about players making alot of money and not being held accountable for their play on the field. He took accountability for his actions during the loss of WS in 1993 and stated it on camera and paid the price by being traded even after he had the best season of his career at the time. The ownership said his best days were behind him when he was released. John Kruk disagreed and said that move physcologically destroyed him wanting to play baseball any more. How many players would do what Williams did? I would say not very many.
    "Some of the guys who pitched well for us last year aren't going to make the ballclub," Narron said.

    Pete Rose, when asked by David Letterman who he likes in the MLB playoffs:

    "You sound like you're betting on baseball."

  7. #6
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,406

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Everybody in the reds front office are millionares so you can't tell me that the main reason they don't spend money is b/c they can't afford it!!
    I thought "everyone" one was a "Billionaire" myself.

    Thanks for straightening that out for me.

  8. #7
    Member SandyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Kenner , LA
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    I'd rather see the Reds build for long-term success than throw too much money around for a short-term solution.

    It's about rebuilding the organization, virtually from the ground up. No quick fixes. It's going to take time. If the Reds were a player or two away from competing, I'd be more concerned about unwillingness to spend.

  9. #8
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SandyD View Post
    I'd rather see the Reds build for long-term success than throw too much money around for a short-term solution.

    It's about rebuilding the organization, virtually from the ground up. No quick fixes. It's going to take time. If the Reds were a player or two away from competing, I'd be more concerned about unwillingness to spend.

    The problem is, they have supposedly been doing this since 2001 or 2003 and there has been no evidence things are going to be different. The owner has a different personality but in reality he's really no different than the previous one. Wayne has a different personality than DanO and both are different than JimBo but the results are the same. Narron's no different than Miley or Boone or McKeon or Knight as a manager. You can understand why some people would like to see a quick fix because there's no guarantee that the future will be as bright as we are led to believe. I don't necessarily think throwing money at the problem is the answer but I'm not convinced they are on the right track now.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  10. #9
    Member SandyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Kenner , LA
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    I'm not either. I just believe throwing money at the problem ... especially on major league contracts ... is definitely the wrong direction for the moment.

  11. #10
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SandyD View Post
    I'm not either. I just believe throwing money at the problem ... especially on major league contracts ... is the wrong direction for the moment.

    It may be. Throwing money at Jeff Weaver would have been a huge mistake. Throwing money - not necessarily as much as Weaver - at Stanton and Cormier were mistakes. Throwing money at Jeff Suppan may not have been a bad thing. Throwing money at a closer may have been a better idea than hoping Guardado can come back from TJ surgery ahead of schedule.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  12. #11
    Member Redlegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Outer view seats
    Posts
    842

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    The only way for the Reds to win consistantly is by being better at scouting and developing talent. It's no big secret. The A's have so many good young arms, they can't keep them all. Twins are good more times than not.

    WVPacman is just frustrated like all of us. Castellini has just been here a little over a year. It takes time, but the Reds as an organization has been said to be on the right track.
    As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.

  13. #12
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Redlegs View Post
    The only way for the Reds to win consistantly is by being better at scouting and developing talent. It's no big secret. The A's have so many good young arms, they can't keep them all. Twins are good more times than not.

    Absolutely. But is this the right bunch to scout and develop that talent? People like to use the Marlins example of blowing it up and playing the kids. But the same thing may not work here since the Reds scouts and people who develop the talent may not even be in the same league as the Marlins. I think a huge mistake was made a few years ago, not only by the Reds but by other teams, when the Expos looked like they were headed for contraction. That was a minor league system that produced a great deal of major league talent over the past. The smart thing to do would have been to pillage that organization of talent - both on and off the field. That bunch is the Marlins organization now.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  14. #13
    Member SandyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Kenner , LA
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Signing Suppan to a decent contract that would have kept him around for a couple of years without making it difficult to sign Harang and Arroyo to extension and without making it difficult to further strengthen the team next year ...
    AND

    Signing a top-notch closer to another decent contract that doesn't cripple the team for the future ....

    would have made the team this year more interesting to watch. But that's not throwing money around. And are your sure "money" is the primary reason those things did not/could not happen?

    I'll state it another way. The problems of this organization are much deeper than an unwillingness to spend.

  15. #14
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,346

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SandyD View Post
    Signing Suppan to a decent contract that would have kept him around for a couple of years without making it difficult to sign Harang and Arroyo to extension and without making it difficult to further strengthen the team next year ...
    AND

    Signing a top-notch closer to another decent contract that doesn't cripple the team for the future ....

    would have made the team this year more interesting to watch. But that's not throwing money around. And are your sure "money" is the primary reason those things did not/could not happen?

    I'll state it another way. The problems of this organization are much deeper than an unwillingness to spend.

    Throwing money around is throwing money around, no matter what the intentions or results. The Yankees just threw a bunch of money at Roger Clemens. It might be a good thing for them or he might pitch poorly. And they have the money where they can do that. The Reds don't. I don't think they are necessarily cheap and unwilling to spend money and AI agree there are bigger problems than that. But I don't see any evidence they are ready, willing or able to address those problems. Perhaps because those problems are in the mirror.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  16. #15
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: The reds have to spend $$ if they want to win!!

    When you have limited resources, every penny you spend counts. Contracts being handed out to disasters like Stanton and Conine hurt in the long run. $2 million here and $2 million there adds up and, when you get absolutely no value from them, is basically like flushing it down the toilet.

    I'm all about spending money for better players, but I think WK did a piss poor job in his first offseason. What's the difference between Salmon and Stanton, besides $2 million and 15 years of age or so?

    I said it all off-season...Wayne needed to make a choice. Either cut back and put money into the farm system or go for it. He did neither. He spent money on guys who wanted one more 2 year deal before retirement and WK was handing out 2 year deals like there was no next year. Between Conine, Gonzalez, Stanton, Cormier and Castro, that's a lot of money for this franchise. And for what...to be in last place? It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that these guys weren't going to get this team into October.

    So my whole argument has been, "Why bother?" Did WK actualy think Gonzalez was the missing piece? Did he think that Stanton was the needed arm at the back of the bullpen? This team was in contention last season and they couldn't give tickets away. It's obvious that they cannot go for the gusto with older players, since one year "success" stories still won't fill the stands. They need to build from the ground up. Which means slashing payroll.

    Start dumping players. Bob should go hire the entire Florida front office. Another season of WK's misuse of the limited funds he is given will just hurt this team in the long run. I hope he isn't around too much longer because the longer he is here the more damage he can do. Unless he sees the writing on the wall and rips the team apart.


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 | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25