Okay, so the Red's current payroll w/ no changes will be around $69 mil. The Reds COULD operate on a much higher payroll, but the question is not can ... it's will.
I broke out my calculator and did some math today. The Reds actually paid $69 mil for their players and staff last year according to
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/200...i-reds_24.html
The Reds total revenue was $146 mil according to Forbes (revenue data is 2006, latest availabe- but I think the analogy still works). Does that surprise you? Even if you tack on another 15 mil in administrative costs, the Reds still pocketed about $60 mil last year... I mean I'm sure there are other elements to this that I'm not aware of, but, still... Baseball's a good business.
In other words, if the Reds ownership wanted to raise the player payroll - it's not like they'd have to take a loan, or even tap into their personal bank accounts, they would just have to concede to make less of a profits.
Anyway, the Reds aren't particularly greedy in comparison to the rest of baseball. They spent 47% of their revenue on player payroll. Oakaland had the exact same revenue as us $146mil, but they spent 54% of revenue on player payroll. The NL Central shakes out like this:
Cubs: 51%
St. Louis: 49%
Pirates: 28%
Astros: 48%
Brewers: 49%
So, 4 out of 5 teams in our division spent a higher % on player payroll than we did (though not by much).
What's interesting is that the "large market" teams actually spends quite a bit more of their revenue on players' pay roll: Yankees spent 63% and Red Sox spent 61%.
In other words, I don't think we need to worry about what the Reds CAN do, it's more of a question of what they're willing to do.
I know my methodology is not perfect - if you have ideas on how to make it better - let me know, because I'd love to determine what the Reds profits look like.