Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65

Thread: Edskin's bi-monthly column: Edition #1

  1. #16
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,756
    Originally posted by letsgojunior
    I was reading about Mark Cuban this morning, who personally I think is an immature nut, and he had a really good quote: "If you are not an involved owner, you are an idiot".
    Cuban may know software, but...!?! This quote makes me think of Mike Brown. Enough said.

    lgj, I am afraid that the small market thing is the biggest problem in REDS land and other ML cities. Case in point... the World Series champs of late: NY Yankees, Florida Marlins (before the fire-sale), Arizona Diamondbacks and Anaheim Angels (spent $500,000 more per player than the REDS). No Twins, A's, Expos or Marlins. Th Expos and Marlins may of had better W-L records than the REDS, but they still did not come close to making the post-season. Why? SMALL MARKET. If they had better records than the Braves (BIG MARKET... for many years and how many playoff appearances during those $years$?), then they would have made the post-season. Here's how I see the "game" of MLB in a nutshell over the last few decades:

    1970's: Great time. Teams like the REDS, Orioles, Pirates, A's, Yankees and Dodgers are strong. Economics arenot a big issue. Some teams dwell in the cellar for the decade, but money is not the big issue.

    1980's: Still a good competitive balance, but the "slide starts". Teams like the Phillies, Twins, '84 Tigers, Cards and the who could forget the Brew Crew are remembered. Free agency becomes a big thing and usually the high-bidder wins. The REDS do not win a division title in the decade.

    1990's: "Oh crap", says fans in many cities. We see the WS cancelled b/c of a strike. We see salaries go through the ceiling thanks to MLB hobbyists like Turner, Steinbrenner and Jacobs. Fans get educated on new terms like SMALL MARKET, revenue sharing, collective bargaining, etc. BIG MARKET teams start winning the World Series every year.

    Your term "sound baseball decisions and flexibility" makes me wonder. Is it a "sound baseball decision and flexible" to lose money (Linder)? And if Lindner approves add'l spending to make these decisions, can the REDS still outbid the BIG MARKET teams to acquire this "good" player? A catch-22 for SMALL MARKET teams. Just look at who got the rights to sign the latest Japnese and Cuban players to hit the U.S. The Yankees.

    In regard to Oester, it did cause embarassment for the club. A lot brought on by "nice guy" Oester's comments. While Ronnie had no ML managerial experience to base judgement and I am not a big Bob Boone backer, I am glad he did not get the manager's job. He could of had it, if he would have accepted the offer made (6 figures to do the laborous job of managing a MLB team and a nice raise from a coach's salary... that good ol' American gluttony). He waited and felt the screw. Welcome to America.

    In regard to Larkin, I'd venture to guess that you (like me and most REDS loyalists) were happy at the time. Hindsight tells us better. The same goes for the money spent on Junior. Utter excitement at the time by all REDS loyalists. Now many think the REDS are better off without him (spend the money on pitching, I hear). Hindsight again.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,816
    GAC wrote:
    Let's say you are an investor/shareholder in UDF, Chiquita, or one of Lindner's other holdings, and he's telling you each quarter/year that your dividends/profits will be alot smaller because he's taking that millions and putting it towards the Reds (and organization that you, as a shareholder, have no part with)?
    This is PRECISELY why the IRS and SEC would be all over Lindner if he did try to pull this. Far too many fans think all Lindner has to do is pull profits out of Chiquita, and pull profits out of Great American Insurance, and pull profits out of Provident Bank, and that will pay for the huge payrolls. I have no accounts with Provident Bank, but if I did and I heard he was taking profits out of the institution where I have MY life savings, in order to pay some baseball player, you better believe I'd be contacting someone with the SEC.

    I agree with what letsgojunior said in the other thread. Lindner needs to get more involved in the front office power struggles and put an end to the three ring circus we've got going on right now. He needs to get a REAL PR department that actually does something besides feeding mid-game injury reports to Marty and Joe in the radio booth.

    Enjoyable read, Edskin. I look forward to more of these columns.
    Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one, and they don't want someone else's shoved into their face.

  4. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,949
    RFA, I was quite sick during the whole Larkin re-signing, so I didn't really have an opinion of it at that time. But I would probably say I was more happy than annoyed, but it wasn't for the right reasons. It was because we got to keep a local icon, not because I thought that it would pay off in the long run. My point was this. Lindner did not listen to his baseball people at all on that move. Bowden et al knew that the move would strangle an already top-heavy payroll, and given Larkin's injury history and age, it didn't make sense. And there wasn't another team in baseball that would have given him that extension at that age. A lot of people have directed blame towards the fans for this one. However, I disagree. As an owner of a baseball team, an unforgiving, what have you done for me lately industry, you have to take some hits every once in awhile. What should have been done that year was to let Larkin finish out the season and become an FA. I am reasonably sure that no other team would have offered him such a lucrative package. Find out what the market was offering and increase it a little and go from there. Teams that grossly outbid the competition (see Hicks, Tom) always come out looking stupid.

    I used other teams as examples for the strict purpose of saying that a lot of people seem to comment that you can't do any better than we have on such a small budget. Yes, you can. A LOT better. Oakland has made the playoffs the last three years, and lost to the mighty Yankees because Jeremy Giambi didn't slide, not because the Yanks had some $20 M superstar hitting 3 bombs in a game in Game 5. Minnesota came within 2 games of making it to the World Series this year. Florida and Montreal, despite not having a stadium full of sold-out luxury boxes, finished with better records and have correctly focused their team (on starting pitching).

    The Reds will never be in the market for the Jose Contrerases of the world. But that doesn't mean we can't be good. I wouldn't be shocked if Contreras really turns out to be 35 or so. The GAB doesn't mean, as Daugherty eloquently put it, that we will all of a sudden become NYC on the Ohio River. But it does mean that if Bartolo Colon comes along, we should have a really good shot at him. It also means that we should be able to draft players with the highest ceilings (not the ones we think will just take slot money), and maximize the talent of our system.

    Regarding Ronnie, I have never been a big fan of his. To me, he lost a lot of goodwill with what he did to Casey this ST. However, what happened to him was abominable. I read an article with Willie Randolph the other day. When asked about the Reds managerial position, he said he took himself out of the running because the offer was to become the lowest paid manager in baseball, and that he wouldn't even get to assemble his own staff. Oester was told that the job was his, and that there was no one else in the running. It's like my dad when he always buys cars. He always "dickers" with the salesman, trying to get this thrown in. It is not a sign of greed. If Ronnie had known other candidates were involved, I am pretty sure he would have accepted the job. And this is from a person who would prefer the reincarnation of Ray Knight as manager rather than Oester.
    Last edited by letsgojunior; 12-29-2002 at 04:47 PM.

  5. #19
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,680
    I'm sorry, but Ron Oester not getting the manager's job is Ron Oester's fault.

    I don't care what kind of money they offer you. You get the chance to manage...and you jump on it! He was the idiot in that scenario IMO.

    And I don't blame the Reds for one second for passing up on Colon last year, knowing his pending free agent status. And I don't care what little the Expo's had to give up to get him either.

    What were the Indian's demands (player-wise) from this organization for Colon? It was far greater than what they settled for from the Expos at the time.

    And I don't think Colon would have made much of a difference anyway, due to the injuries to key offensive players we incurred anyway.

    We're arguing over a moot issue here LOL
    Last edited by GAC; 12-30-2002 at 07:39 AM.

  6. #20
    Dunnilicious creek14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Beavercreek
    Posts
    11,774
    Originally posted by MikeS21
    Far too many fans think all Lindner has to do is pull profits out of Chiquita, and pull profits out of Great American Insurance, and pull profits out of Provident Bank, and that will pay for the huge payrolls.
    I don't think that anyone thinks that Carl should mix money like that.

    I do believe that people think that Carl and his band of merry men need to pull out the personal check book and thrown in a couple million each to get a pitcher. Which seems like a lot to you and me, but when you see your name on Forbes list each year, it isn't that much. 10 shares, kick in a million per share. That would work.

    And I don't think that the fans expect that to be a donation to the city. If the owners would show the fans that they are that interested in trying to win, I believe the fans would reward them with higher attendence. Which would put more money back in their pockets.

    Yes it might be a little extreme, but after the Bengal loss today, the fans of Cincinnati are more than a little testy. Carl and the limiteds are going to face a wrath a little more brutal than usual, at least for a while.
    Will trade this space for a #1 starter.

  7. #21
    Team Tuck
    Guest
    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.

  8. #22
    Team Tuck
    Guest
    Originally posted by letsgojunior

    As an owner of a baseball team, an unforgiving, what have you done for me lately industry, you have to take some hits every once in awhile.

    Regarding Ronnie, I have never been a big fan of his. To me, he lost a lot of goodwill with what he did to Casey this ST. However, what happened to him was abominable. I read an article with Willie Randolph the other day. When asked about the Reds managerial position, he said he took himself out of the running because the offer was to become the lowest paid manager in baseball, and that he wouldn't even get to assemble his own staff.
    I agree on your first point re the Larkin signing. But if Jimbo had followed thru with his plan of either trading him or letting him become a FA, why do I get the feeling that at that time, you would have been one of the first to claim that Bowden is an insensitive, unforgiving jackass for not wanting to keep a local legend around.

    I like the fact that we have the lowest paid manager in the game. To me, it's such an overrated position, particularly with a good pitching coach. Hell, Jack slept thru most of the games.

  9. #23
    Team Tuck
    Guest
    One thing I agree with is that Carl needs to be a little more flexible, although I think Finley last year is a bad example. We finished 19 games out, so don't imply that we were playoff bound with Finley. And, Finley was having a rough season when the Cardinals picked him up. At the time of the transaction, primarily because of Finley's age, I thought both Dempster and Estes were better acquisitions, and I still think they were.

  10. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,949
    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.
    I have included 1993-2002 in my analysis, Bowden's tenure as GM of the Reds. I have included two categories: teams that have spent more and won less than the Reds, and teams that have spent less and won more than the Reds. I have indicated win totals. My data came from usatoday.com for salary and from baseballreference.com from win totals.

    why do I get the feeling that at that time, you would have been one of the first to claim that Bowden is an insensitive, unforgiving jackass for not wanting to keep a local legend around.
    Because you don't know me well at all and because you often rely on making assumptions?? I wouldn't have a problem with Bowden trading close to anyone if he didn't do it in such a classless manner in many cases (ignoring handshake agreements, printing false salary demands in newspapers).

    Anyways, on to the analysis:

    1993

    Reds payroll: $42,851,167
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 1, Toronto
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 26
    Reds win total: 73
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 18 (Yankees, 88; Kansas City, 84; Cubs, 84; Braves, 104; Dodgers, 81; Boston, 80; Detroit, 85; Texas, 86; CWS, 94; San Francisco, 103; Seattle, 82; Houston, 85; Baltimore, 85; Philly, 97; Pitt, 75; STL, 87; Montreal, 94; Cleveland, 76)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 0

    1994

    Reds payroll: $39,826,333
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 6 (Yankees, Braves, Royals, Tigers, Giants, Blue Jays)
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 21
    Reds win total: 66
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 3
    (CWS, 67; Oakland, 68; Montreal, 74)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 4 (Toronto, 55; KC, 64; Tigers, 53; Giants, 54)

    1995

    Reds payroll: $37,240,667
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 5 (Yankees, Braves, Blue Jays, Orioles, CWS)
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 22
    Reds win total: 85
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 2 (Cleveland, 100; Boston, 86)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 4 (Yankees, 79; Toronto, 56; Orioles, 71; CWS, 68)

    1996

    Reds payroll: $40,719,334
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 5 (Yankees, Braves, Indians, Orioles, CWS)
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 22
    Reds win total: 81
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 9 (Boston, 85; Seattle, 85; STL, 88; Texas, 90; Colorado, 83; Dodgers, 90; Padres, 91; Houston, 82; Montreal, 88)

    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 0

    1997

    Reds payroll: $46,267,000
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 7 (Yankees, Braves, Rangers, Orioles, CWS, Indians, Marlins)
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 20
    Reds win total: 76
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 13 (Anaheim, 84; Expos, 78; Boston, 78; Dodgers, 88; Rockies, 83; Seattle, 90; Mets, 88; Giants, 90; Astros, 84; Angels, 84; Brewers, 78; Tigers, 79; Pirates, 79)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 0

    1998

    Reds payroll: $21,995,000
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 26
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 3
    Reds win total: 77
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 0
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 10 (KC, 72; Arizona, 65; TB, 63; KC, 72; Det, 65; Min, 70; Florida, 54; Phillies, 75; Mil, 74; Sea, 76)

    1999

    Reds payroll: $42,142,761
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 19
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 10
    Reds win total: 96
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 0
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 13 (Bal, 78; Boston, 94; Dodgers, 77; SF, 86; SD, 74; Col, 72; Cubs, 67; Mil, 74; STL, 75; Ana 70; Sea, 79; Tex 95; Tor, 84)

    2000

    Reds payroll: $44,217,500
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 21
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 8
    Reds win total: 85
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 2 (Oakland, 91; CWS, 95)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 11 (Bal, 74; TB, 2000; Det, 79; Phillies, 65; SD, 76; Col, 82; Cubs, 65; Astros, 72; Anaheim, 82; Texas, 71; Tor, 73)

    2001

    Reds payroll: $48,784,000
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 20
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 9
    Reds win total: 66
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 8
    (Anaheim, 75; Minn, 85; Mon, 68; Marlins, 76; Phillies, 86; Padres, 79; Oakland, 102; Mil, 68)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 3 (Bal, 63; TB, 62; Pitt, 62)

    2002

    Reds payroll: $45,050,390
    Teams with payrolls greater than the Reds: 22
    Teams with payrolls smaller than the Reds: 7
    Reds win total: 78
    Number of teams that had a lower payroll than Reds and finished with more wins: 4 (Oakland, 103; Minnesota, 94; Montreal, 83; Florida, 79)
    Number of teams that had a higher payroll than Reds and finished with less wins: 9 (Baltimore, 67; Cleveland, 74; KC, 62; Det, 55; NYM, 75; Col, 73; Cubs, 67; Brewers, 56; Texas, 72)

    Bowden’s Tenure as GM:
    Number of teams with small payrolls and higher win totals: 59
    Number of teams with larger payrolls and lower win totals: 54


    Grand Conclusion: The Oaklands of the world have beaten the Reds to a greater extent than the Reds have beaten up the Orioles and Tigers.








    Last edited by letsgojunior; 12-29-2002 at 10:17 PM.

  11. #25
    Member SandyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Kenner , LA
    Posts
    2,719
    There could have been more to the Findley thing than just money, and if so, that's ok. I wasn't sold on that trade anyway, but here are some of the things that we have heard from various sources, of varying degrees of credibility.

    We can't go one dime over payroll.

    We have to trade some of our better performers to free up their salary, and we might not get much in return (or the players we get may be works in progress).

    The new ball park will put people in the seats. That may be true, but if you opened a movie theatre, would you take the attitude that folks will come just because it's new? Would you say it publicly, even if you did?

    There will only be a slight increase in payroll. (slight can mean a lot of things: a couple of million? 10%? 20%? I admit I felt a lot better when they came out and said $60 mil, but even then, if we need a reasonable increase in payroll in July to "remain competive", we should just do it. You, Lindner, and I might define "reasonable" differently, but it is "unreasonable" to take a stance of "absolutely not" to any increase in payroll. I think we can agree we need some flexibility when it comes to these decisions.

    Maybe it all comes down to the way it's presented. Marketing and public relations. I don't mind salary dumps if we make other moves to improve the team. I applaud Lindner for not going overboard, but what have they done to reassure the fans? I'm not even concerned about this year, if it looks like we are moving in the right direction ... in any direction.

    Sorry for the proprietary "we". It's easy to fall into that pattern, and I really don't blame Lindner or any one person for all of it. It's more likely a system-wide problem, including the media, the local business community, and even the fans. Maybe we're expecting too much. Maybe we lack patience. I don't know about you, but I want the Reds to win every game. I know it's not going to happen, but when they lose two or three in a row, and don't we all feel like the team is going to go down the tubes, and ... well, we know the feeling all too well.

  12. #26
    Team Tuck
    Guest
    lgj, thanks for all the info. Now, based on YOUR analysis, the years we should have won more were '93, '96 and '97. Is that really what you were suggesting? In those three years, 40 teams with lower payrolls finished with better records and 0 teams with higher payrolls finished with worse records. Fair enough.

    Over the past 5 years (1998-2002), when payroll inequities and competitive balance has been at its worst, only 14 teams with lower payrolls have won more, while 46 teams with higher payrolls have won less. So based on how you chose to look at it, recent history suggests that the Reds are doing quite well given their low payroll. That's what I suspected. Hey lgj, Bowden appreciates your support!!

    Point is, if you want to start comparing wins and payrolls, we may look bad compared to Oakland, but we look pretty good relative to quite a few other organizations. Your theory works a lot better if you're talking about the Pirates, Brewers, Tigers, Orioles, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Rockies, Rangers - shall I keep going?

  13. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,949
    Originally posted by Team Tuck
    lgj, thanks for all the info. Now, based on YOUR analysis, the years we should have won more were '93, '96 and '97. Is that really what you were suggesting? In those three years, 40 teams with lower payrolls finished with better records and 0 teams with higher payrolls finished with worse records. Fair enough.

    Over the past 5 years (1998-2002), when payroll inequities and competitive balance has been at its worst, only 14 teams with lower payrolls have won more, while 46 teams with higher payrolls have won less. So based on how you chose to look at it, recent history suggests that the Reds are doing quite well given their low payroll. That's what I suspected. Hey lgj, Bowden appreciates your support!!

    Point is, if you want to start comparing wins and payrolls, we may look bad compared to Oakland, but we look pretty good relative to quite a few other organizations. Your theory works a lot better if you're talking about the Pirates, Brewers, Tigers, Orioles, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Rockies, Rangers - shall I keep going?
    Your point is that we should now crown Lindner, Allen, and Bowden kings of the universe because we have done better the last 5 years compared to the Rangers, Pirates, Tigers, and Devil Rays? That's like saying a kid with a C on his report card did really good because a few idiots got an F. You have stated countless times on this board "Who does better with less?" Even looking at the last 5 years, in which several clueless GM's walked around the Free Agent Market with credit cards, we still have an average of three teams a year beating us while using less revenue to do it.

    My point is that it is ridiculous to assume that 78 wins should be our crowning achievement with a $45 M payroll.

    In the 10 year tenure of Bowden, we have had more teams beat us using less revenue than we have beaten teams using more revenue. It's as simple as that.

    You used the competitive balance argument from 1998-2002, which is fine. But how about when Marge was running the team early on, and countless teams beat us despite having smaller payrolls? We have been at both ends of the spectrum in Bowden's tenure, yet we have one playoff appearance and 0 World Series trophies to show for it.

    Other teams, such as Atlanta and Cleveland, have experienced that same changing of the guard. Being at the bottom of the heap and then climbing to the top (or the reverse). So why is it they have a lot more hardware? Because they are run better.

    You continue to change your argument on this matter. A few weeks ago, you asked "Which teams with LESS have done better"?

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...8381#post78381

    Now that it has been proven that through Bowden's tenure, more teams with less have done better than teams with more have done worse, all of a sudden you are compromising your argument to the Reds are doing pretty good (and not the best penny-pinching organization out there?)

    My point was that the Reds have been beaten out more consistently by low budget teams in the past ten years. There is no refuting that. To compromise it by saying that the Tampa Bay's, Detroit's, Kansas City's of the world make us look like a first-rate organization is specious. The bottom line is that, maybe ten organizations are run worse. But twenty are run better. Not the penny-pinching organizational wonder that you portray.
    Last edited by letsgojunior; 12-30-2002 at 08:43 PM.

  14. #28
    Team Tuck
    Guest
    I have not changed my argument at all. This all started when you stated that you don't buy the small market/payroll excuse (apparently forgetting that the Yankees have dominated baseball for the past 5 years). I questioned the narrow view you took when you said we could do a lot better despite our payroll, and 2002 was proof in that 4 out of 7 teams with lower payrolls had better records (albeit Montreal and Fla were 2 of those teams, and all 7 of those teams were w/in $10m of our payroll). I simply asked you to broaden your view a little. You did that.

    From your research, it's clear that 1993, 1996 and 1997 are the years that support your 'terrible Reds' theory the best, all BEFORE the HUGE payroll inequities that exist today. Would you agree with that????? Remember, '97 was one of the first times a team was known to 'buy' a WS - the Marlins. If 93-97 was the time period you were referring to, then fine, I can accept that.

    IMO, the more applicable time period to consider when talking big payroll vs small payroll would be the time period since that '97 Marlins WS. When I asked a few weeks ago, "Which teams with LESS have done BETTER?" I was referring to payrolls since '97 - that's when competitive balance and huge payroll discrepancies became such a problem. During the time frame I considered (98-02), I hardly consider Atlanta and Cleveland as having operated with less....their payrolls have nearly doubled ours. Cleveland has a lot more hardware? I must have missed their WS championships? And so, to answer my question, since the Marlins bought their WS, "Which teams with LESS have done BETTER?" you've answered emphatically Oakland and ............................Oakland and....................Oakland.

    Look, could we be better despite our low payroll? Sure we could. But is it difficult to sustain success every single year with a small payroll? You bet it is. Oakland is the only one to refute that, because they developed some very good young starting pitching. Hopefully, we're doing the same, but unfortunately it's a year or two away.

    lgj, agree with me on a couple of things. To argue that market size is a non-factor is ludicrous. I think you agree. And to say that so many others have overcome small payrolls better than the Reds is difficult to support at best.

    Hey, stop by sometime this year, and we can argue over a beer.


  15. #29
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,267
    If you're going to be selective about which years you choose why stop at '93, '96 and '97 (other than the fact that it arbitrarily allows you to make the conclusion you wish to make)?

    After all, how many teams had lower payrolls than the Reds in 1998? One? Two? Not really much of an accomplishment being the least bitter of the league's dregs.

    Obviously 1999 and 2000 were successes. The Reds struck a winning combination and looked as if they might be a force to reckon with in the new millennium. Since then? 12 teams with lower payrolls have done better and 12 teams with higher payrolls have done worse. Pure middle of the road.

    All that tells me is Bowden did a good job of conquering new lands, but ultimately he didn't have what it takes to hold together a kingdom.

    Bowden's tenure can be broken in four stages:

    '93-'96 - up and down results with a high payroll
    '97-'98 - rebuilding
    '99-'00 - strikes gold, future looks bright
    '01-'02 - lofty hopes dissolve and Bowden sputters

    I used to be a huge Bowden supporter and I still consider the moves he made in '97 and '98 a brilliant run, but he's lost the touch. This guy hasn't landed a Sean Casey, Mike Cameron, Danny Graves or Dmitri Young since '98. He hasn't drafted an Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns or Scott Williamson since '98 either.

    While it's possible some GMs might not do as well as Bowden on his budget, it's pretty nearsighted not to recognize at this point that others could do far better.

  16. #30
    Pitching is the thing WVRedsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Rainelle, WV
    Posts
    8,158
    Originally posted by creek14
    I don't think that anyone thinks that Carl should mix money like that.

    I do believe that people think that Carl and his band of merry men need to pull out the personal check book and thrown in a couple million each to get a pitcher. Which seems like a lot to you and me, but when you see your name on Forbes list each year, it isn't that much. 10 shares, kick in a million per share. That would work.

    And I don't think that the fans expect that to be a donation to the city. If the owners would show the fans that they are that interested in trying to win, I believe the fans would reward them with higher attendence. Which would put more money back in their pockets.

    Yes it might be a little extreme, but after the Bengal loss today, the fans of Cincinnati are more than a little testy. Carl and the limiteds are going to face a wrath a little more brutal than usual, at least for a while.
    Creek..I'm with you on this one. You make perfect sense. Trouble is, everyone wants to do things on the cheap. WE spend our money and they don't. I'll guarantee you this...the money I spend on the Reds is a larger percentage of my income than a little extra booty from the "boys" would be for decent pitching. But, of course, I expect too much out of Carl.


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