"Small Market" excuse will no longer work...

[Matt700wlw]

http://blog.dispatch.com/blog-16/200...he_money.shtml


Playoff payrolls

2. Red Sox 143.0 million
23. Indians 61.6 million
25. Rockies 54.4 million
26. Diamondbacks 52.0 million

Reds...at home

20. Reds 68.9 million

[Phhhl]

It is still a very valid argument. Pick the two teams out of that group that are virtually guaranteed a playoff spot every single season because they outspend everyone else. It's not hard to identify them, and that IS a problem that hurts the game. When the Rockies, D-Backs or Indains win 13 consecutive division titles we can stop banging on baseball for being a total catastrophe in terms of competitive balance. But, it is just going to get worse.

[Matt700wlw]

Originally Posted by Santo Alcala

It is still a very valid argument. Pick the two teams out of that group that are virtually guaranteed a playoff spot every single season because they outspend everyone else. It's not hard to identify them, and that IS a problem that hurts the game. When the Rockies, D-Backs or Indains win 13 consecutive division titles we can stop banging on baseball for being a total catastrophe in terms of competitive balance. But, it is just going to get worse.

They may not win 13 consecutive division titles, but how many have the Reds won since 1995?

The Marlins have won 2 titles, while rebuilding in between them, the D'Backs won 1, made the playoffs the next year, blew it up, and are back in this year...the Indians had their run in the late 1990's, blew it up, and got themselves back in it....the Twins and A's have had some good teams and playoff appearances...I'm sure there's more cases I'm not thinking of...

Meanwhile the Reds have used it as an excuse as to why they're not winning. I hope Castellini changes that.

With some pitching, this team should be there.

[redsmetz]

I finally got to read the article and I don't think Bronson Arroyo stating a well known fact is "whining" about being a "small market" club. I've long argued that the Reds needn't be considered a "small market" because we're more than just the Cincinnati market. There is no question that lower payroll clubs can make the playoffs and what an organization that will be in the middle of the pack needed to be smarter than those who can just throw money at the problem. A fairly worthless article, IMO.

[red-in-la]

These artilces are so silly.....look at the converse side of the argument. How many 100+ million teams lost 90 games?

The author made the proper statment in the first paragraph......other teams can afford to make mistakes.

The fact that some teams cannot afford the mistakes makes the whole ridiclous system unfair.

[dougdirt]

NYY - 3B, SS and 1B = 72 Million in 2007.
Reds- Entire roster = 69 Million in 2007.

There are serious flaws in the system.

[Unassisted]

3 of the 4 teams that lost in their division series were Top Ten in payroll.

1. Yankees.
4. Angels
8. Cubs
13. Phillies

And putting that list back with the 4 survivors shows that half of this years playoff teams were in the top 50-percentile of payroll.

If the Red Sox win it all, doesn't that disprove the notion that payroll size doesn't matter in 2007?

[Matt700wlw]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

NYY - 3B, SS and 1B = 72 Million in 2007.
Reds- Entire roster = 69 Million in 2007.

There are serious flaws in the system.

There's plenty wrong with the system, however, it's not going to change...unfortunately.

Some teams use it as an excuse....other teams find a way to win in spite of it.

Unfortunately, the Reds have used it as an excuse....

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

They may not win 13 consecutive division titles, but how many have the Reds won since 1995?

But turn that around... does anyone think the Reds wouldn't be in the running for divisional titles if they could spend another 100 million?


Edit: but i get your point... the Reds are poorly run and have no margin for error...

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

But turn that around... does anyone think the Reds wouldn't be in the running for divisional titles if they could spend another 100 million?

Depends on who they spent it on. If they spent it on Eric Milton, Jeff Weaver, Chan Ho-Park, etc, then I would think they wouldn't be any better off than they were before.

[Rojo]

Its crazy how teams continue to spend even though payroll doesn't matter. The Yankees should fire their front office and hire Mr. Blogger.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

There's plenty wrong with the system, however, it's not going to change...unfortunately.

Some teams use it as an excuse....other teams find a way to win in spite of it.

Unfortunately, the Reds have used it as an excuse....

Originally Posted by GullyFoyle

But turn that around... does anyone think the Reds wouldn't be in the running for divisional titles if they could spend another 100 million?

Edit: but i get your point... the Reds are poorly run and have no margin for error...

I would disagree with these assessments with regards to the present management of the club. If the present ownership and management has said anything about being small market club, it's been about saying we've got to work harder and smarter to reach the post-season.

We all know we've come off of twenty years of bad ownerships; Marge's short sightedness viz scouting and Lindner's refusal to move the club beyond a break even standpoint. But I disagree that the Castellini regime has the Reds "poorly run".

[M2]

Small market never was a very good excuse to begin with. If an organizational can judge talent and accurately assess its needs, then bright minds should be able to make the budget work.

Jones' article actually points out something that we've known, but hasn't gotten a lot of play in recent years - since 2000 the game has gotten consistently more competitive.

Only one team from the 2006 playoffs made the 2007 playoffs (two if you want to count the Padres) and that club has already been eliminated. Only three teams from the 2005 playoffs made the 2006 playoffs.

That's some decent turnover. Over the last five seasons, 12 of the 16 clubs in the NL have made the playoffs. The AL's been a little less competitive with 8 of 14 making the playoffs, though part of that is because you've had small market successes in Oakland and Minnesota making extended runs. Two other NL clubs (Washington/Montreal and Milwaukee) and four other AL clubs (Toronto, Kansas City, Texas and Seattle) have put together winnings seasons, but missed the playoffs during that stretch. So it's only Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Tampa Bay forming the Perpetual Sisters of the Poor.

Point is, the game has been awfully competitive. No team has made consecutive World Series for seven seasons. Only two teams (the Yankees and Cardinals) have appeared in more than one World Series since 2001, though the Red Sox and D-Backs could join them.

The Braves' dynasty has crumbled. The Dodgers, Cubs and Mets haven't been able to buy domination. The Angels have spent big and gotten three division titles in the past four seasons, but they've also found themselves on the receiving end of three playoff beatdowns in those seasons.

The White Sox jumped their payroll over $100M after they won the Series and have done nothing but disappoint since.

The Yankees of the 21st century have been basically an improved version of the '80s Yankees. They've bought a lot of talent, made a lot of headlines and won the most games, but it hasn't resulted in a championship. Frankly, every team in baseball should be begging the Yankees to keep blowing large sums of cash on veteran contracts ($30M a season for A-Rod works for me). It spreads the wealth around in the form of the luxury tax and it hasn't produced an unstoppable juggernaut.

What would be scary is if the Yankees came up with another generation like Jeter, Rivera, Williams, Pettitte and Posada. The Yankees and Red Sox are both making feints in that direction and that's what ought to scare people. Right now they've just got the biggest dippers in the trough. That still leaves plenty of water. What other teams should fear is if they buy the spiggot.

[RedLegSuperStar]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

They may not win 13 consecutive division titles, but how many have the Reds won since 1995?

The Marlins have won 2 titles, while rebuilding in between them, the D'Backs won 1, made the playoffs the next year, blew it up, and are back in this year...the Indians had their run in the late 1990's, blew it up, and got themselves back in it....the Twins and A's have had some good teams and playoff appearances...I'm sure there's more cases I'm not thinking of...

Meanwhile the Reds have used it as an excuse as to why they're not winning. I hope Castellini changes that.

With some pitching, this team should be there.

Very good points.. And I have to agree.. this can't be an excuse or the fall back reason. It's not saying go out and spend money.. but know how to draft and develop players. Reds are doing a great job finding diamonds in the rough so to speak with Phillips, Hamilton, Burton, and Keppinger. But notice only one is a pitcher. He are going to need pitching and have always needed pitching but gotten away from it by pulling someone from the pen or took a flyer on someone who just didn't pan out. I think offensively this team is going to be good. Defensively might below average to average. But pitching is where Krivsky needs to go to work and weed out the goods and the bads and add to the mix this offseason.

[westofyou]

The Marlins have won 2 titles, while rebuilding in between them, the D'Backs won 1, made the playoffs the next year, blew it up, and are back in this year

While this is true the Marlins are dead in the water as a viable business, they draw like the Phillies in the 30's and Arizona has a sketchy past and recent attendance woes too. Both have lost over 107 games almost immediately after winning. The Reds have only lost over 100 games once since 1882.

The D-Backs situation was particularly interesting.

In 2000 Major League Baseball had to guarantee a bank loan to keep Colangelo’s Diamondbacks franchise afloat (a first for MLB). Ten members of the 2001 Diamondbacks agreed to restructure their contracts, including Randy Johnson, a key member of the World Series winners.

''I feel I'm helping this organization out to let Jerry have some working capital and go out and get what he needs to make this a competitive team,'' Randy Johnson, one of the deferring 10, told The New York Times. Having had to ‘rescue’ the D-Backs from financial peril, Major League Baseball was less than enamored with Colangelo’s business philopshy in May 2001.

''There are significant concerns there,'' the official told The New York Times Murray Chass at the time speaking on the condition of anonymity. ''They've spent themselves into serious economic problems. What they've done with deferring more money has only postponed the problem.''

http://sportsbiznews.blogspot.com/20...le-of-mlb.html

As business plans go I find that approach to be tenuous at best, it's a little too Cowboy to build a foundation and still 6 years after they won the series they too worry about too many Cubs fans at their home games against Chicago.

Seats are important, what defines a small market is the revenue generated from the business outside of the sales of seats and hot dogs. Currently the Reds are a small market, perhaps they can attack that in a manner that is sustainable and produces winners.