Certainly it's easy to take Jocketty's statement as a throwaway line. But noting that he will not be trading Votto is a clear statement. As for a timetable, why is "within the next year" wrong? Votto seems to be in no rush; the Reds are certainly not pressed to do so. Some players have suggested in their careers that not addressing it is an insult, shows bad faith, etc. Votto, at times, is fairly inscrutable.
Others have suggested that Votto won't give a "home town discount," but what exactly does that mean in real world terms? It's not unheard of (albeit rare) that a player decides that an offer is more than enough for himself, particularly for a given contract period. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Kemp's suggested contract is a possible barometer for Votto. Given what little window we're given into Votto's thinking, it wouldn't shock me to see him decide this is where he wants to be at that $140M or $150M is more than enough for him to make.
(An aside, I'm all for players making what they can - they are the whole show afterall - but it's still mindblowing to write such numbers. Crazy world we live in)
I think Jocketty's being square with folks. He makes clear that unsettling talk about trading the team's star is off the table. He mentions a timetable that's more than adequate for showing "good faith" and "respect" and it's not unbelievable that we may well succeed at an extension. And it's also possible it will all be for naught. But there's absolutely no rush. If come next off-season, Votto is resolute in not signing long term, then he can be dealt. Many here have said the same all along.