Ownership's Role in All of This

[mace]

First off, I'm as impressed as anyone with the Reds' proactive surge of the last few weeks. They're doing what needs to be done to compete immediately, and it's compelling. But I'm not convinced that Castellini deserves the accolades that have come his way for the roster upgrades. I'm not seeing see any significant outlay on his part.

A disclaimer: I don't have some of the definitive salary numbers at my fingertips, so there's plenty of wiggle room in which I might be mistaken. For instance, I'm not sure if Latos, who is not yet arbitration-eligible, will still be making the minimum this year. My figures are very approximate. But the way it appears to me, the Reds really haven't taken on any appreciable salary.

They're no longer paying a closer who made 12.1 million last year. Volquez earned (the term applied loosely) just over 1.6. Alonso's due a million this year. Then there are the minimum salaries of Sappelt, Grandal and Boxberger. That's about (a shade under) 16 million no longer on the payroll. On the flip side, the Reds will be paying Madson 8.5 million, Marshall 3.1, Ludwick 2.5, Navarro about a million, Brackman just under a million, and Latos (could be wrong here) and Judy the minimum. That's a fraction under 17 million. So the net cash expense has been about a million--with, as I said, some margin for error there.

No doubt, the club has paid dearly in young talent. That's an unmistakable sacrifice and commitment. But frankly, I can't see that the "all-in" description really applies to ownership. In fact, except for the startling signing of Chapman (and to a lesser extent, Rolen's extension), I'm yet to see Castellini live up to the promises he made when he bought the club--namely, that he would do whatever it takes to bring home a winner. To be sure, he's a far sight better than Lindner as an owner, mostly because he actually cares and has a clue. However, his rhetoric seems largely empty to me.

It could be countered that the club has large extensions, arbitrations, etc., coming up in the next year or two. Yes, there's Votto, Phillips, Latos, Marshall, Madson, Arredondo, et al. Yet, to this point nothing has been committed on those fronts, notably Votto and Phillips. (In Votto's case, I'm sure it's through no fault of the organization's.) And if the Reds are truly "all-in" for 2012, those future considerations should not really be germane.

I'm hoping that the Ludwick deal means they still intend to make some news with another pitcher or whatever. But until then, I'm not convinced that ownership warrants much credit for what Jocketty has accomplished this winter.

[redsmetz]

Just as an FYI, Latos made just over $460K last season when the ML minimum was at $411K. It rises to $480K under the new CBA. I expect Latos will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $550K to $575K.

[cincrazy]

The Reds have some of the lowest revenue streams in all of baseball. As has been shown in another thread recently, Cincinnati has the smallest television market in baseball. So no lucrative TV deal coming any time soon. If the Reds wanted, they could carry around a $50 million payroll and have all kinds of excuses to why we can't spend more. As was the case under Lindner. Under Cast, we're up near $90 million, and it may climb even higher. To me, that's dedication.

[mace]

The points about market considerations are, of course, well-taken. At the same time, ownership can't keep hearkening back to the revenue streams and collecting credit for being "all-in," financially. One or the other.

For the record, over the last six years of Lindner's regime, the Reds averaged 21st (21.2) in MLB payroll. In the six years under Castellini, their average rank is 19.7. So there's a negligible uptick. That said, is Lindner really the standard?

[savafan]

Are the Reds still under the television contract negotiated by John Allen? When does their current tv deal end?

[REDREAD]

Lindner never signed a major free agent. NEVER. EDIT: I forgot about Milton

Cast could've very easily just told Walt to make do with Masset or Marshall as closer.

It is commitment to go out and spend 8.5 million on a FA closer, IMO.
Cast could've passed on this opportunity and no one would've known the difference.

Also, when you consider the extensions Cast has approved.. It's a stark contrast to Lindner/Allen, who were prone to trade anyone expensive as soon as possible.

As somone said, Cast could cry poor, cut the payroll to the bone and collect revenue sharing.. There's no doubt that he's trying to win.

Heck, I don't see Carl willing to spend 2.5 million to add a Ludwick when the team was close.. Carl/Allen balked at adding 900k to add Juan Guzman in 1999.. Bowden had to send an extra player to Baltimore to get them to eat all the salary.

I agree that Carl is an easy benchmark to beat, but Cast has shown a pretty good commitment to winning. We have to walk before we can run.
Hopefully we get some playoff money this year and we can expand the payroll a little more next year.

[paulrichjr]

Originally Posted by cincrazy

As has been shown in another thread recently, Cincinnati has the smallest television market in baseball. So no lucrative TV deal coming any time soon.

Is this true? I know personally I can watch the Reds and I live 20 miles from the TN/MS/AL border....6 hours away from Cincy. The Reds TV network covers a huge area and I thought they had a very large market. I also remember them having some really good TV ratings recently. Now if you are saying they have one of the lowest TV revenue deals I would have to believe that would be true. Just wondering.



http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010...v-ratings-red/

Including the Cardinals (#21 TV market), mid-market teams drew four of the five largest average ratings. The aforementioned Twins (#15) ranked second with an 8.77 average on FS North, the Reds (#33) ranked fourth with a 7.47 on FS Ohio, and the Rays (#14) ranked fifth with a 5.99 on Sun Sports and FS Florida.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Lindner never signed a major free agent. NEVER. EDIT: I forgot about Milton

Cast could've very easily just told Walt to make do with Masset or Marshall as closer.

It is commitment to go out and spend 8.5 million on a FA closer, IMO.
Cast could've passed on this opportunity and no one would've known the difference.

Also, when you consider the extensions Cast has approved.. It's a stark contrast to Lindner/Allen, who were prone to trade anyone expensive as soon as possible.

As somone said, Cast could cry poor, cut the payroll to the bone and collect revenue sharing.. There's no doubt that he's trying to win.

Heck, I don't see Carl willing to spend 2.5 million to add a Ludwick when the team was close.. Carl/Allen balked at adding 900k to add Juan Guzman in 1999.. Bowden had to send an extra player to Baltimore to get them to eat all the salary.

I agree that Carl is an easy benchmark to beat, but Cast has shown a pretty good commitment to winning. We have to walk before we can run.
Hopefully we get some playoff money this year and we can expand the payroll a little more next year.

I'm trying to identify that major free agent Cast has signed. I guess Madson's 1 year deal counts. rotation? no. OF? no. IF? no well, Hernandez.

Lindner did allow a trade for Bichette which took on salary. Allowed a trade for Todd Walker that took on about a mil in salary. Yeah, he wasn't doing the Reds any favors there. However he did let the FO do whatever it wanted in regards to the minor leagues. The interims, DanO and then Krivsky, and Cast has followed through on this too all were allowed to spend money at the minor league level. better scouting, more scouting and better, though still not great, development. In that, Lindner, though more than likely indirectly, did the organization a great service. That is what put the team on the precipice, that is what got this team a division title in 2010 more than any other move any GM or owner made.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by mace

First off, I'm as impressed as anyone with the Reds' proactive surge of the last few weeks. They're doing what needs to be done to compete immediately, and it's compelling. But I'm not convinced that Castellini deserves the accolades that have come his way for the roster upgrades. I'm not seeing see any significant outlay on his part.

A disclaimer: I don't have some of the definitive salary numbers at my fingertips, so there's plenty of wiggle room in which I might be mistaken. For instance, I'm not sure if Latos, who is not yet arbitration-eligible, will still be making the minimum this year. My figures are very approximate. But the way it appears to me, the Reds really haven't taken on any appreciable salary.

They're no longer paying a closer who made 12.1 million last year. Volquez earned (the term applied loosely) just over 1.6. Alonso's due a million this year. Then there are the minimum salaries of Sappelt, Grandal and Boxberger. That's about (a shade under) 16 million no longer on the payroll. On the flip side, the Reds will be paying Madson 8.5 million, Marshall 3.1, Ludwick 2.5, Navarro about a million, Brackman just under a million, and Latos (could be wrong here) and Judy the minimum. That's a fraction under 17 million. So the net cash expense has been about a million--with, as I said, some margin for error there.

No doubt, the club has paid dearly in young talent. That's an unmistakable sacrifice and commitment. But frankly, I can't see that the "all-in" description really applies to ownership. In fact, except for the startling signing of Chapman (and to a lesser extent, Rolen's extension), I'm yet to see Castellini live up to the promises he made when he bought the club--namely, that he would do whatever it takes to bring home a winner. To be sure, he's a far sight better than Lindner as an owner, mostly because he actually cares and has a clue. However, his rhetoric seems largely empty to me.

It could be countered that the club has large extensions, arbitrations, etc., coming up in the next year or two. Yes, there's Votto, Phillips, Latos, Marshall, Madson, Arredondo, et al. Yet, to this point nothing has been committed on those fronts, notably Votto and Phillips. (In Votto's case, I'm sure it's through no fault of the organization's.) And if the Reds are truly "all-in" for 2012, those future considerations should not really be germane.

I'm hoping that the Ludwick deal means they still intend to make some news with another pitcher or whatever. But until then, I'm not convinced that ownership warrants much credit for what Jocketty has accomplished this winter.

You have to prorate the signing bonuses for Grandal and Alonso to be fair. Those were paid by the Reds up front and are a cost of obtaining Latos. I'd even argue the entire amount of those bonuses could be included as a cost of that deal since either saw so little MLB service time. Alonso also received at or above major league minimum the last two years. He was due $1M this year that is now SD's responsibility, but the Reds paid $3.55M to a minor leaguer. Grandal got a $3M bonus, not sure on the annual salary. So those sunk costs have to be included in your analysis since the benefit received was Latos.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by TRF

I'm However he did let the FO do whatever it wanted in regards to the minor leagues.

Not true.
No money to sign the first round pick the year that Sowers was drafted.
No money to sign Esponsia and Sardinha.. that's what started this whole ML contract for draftees fad.

The Reds consistently drafted based on signablity for a long time.

When Ty Howington flopped, John Allen publicly declared that most draft picks were "Wastes of money".
Now I agree that much of the penny pitching is probably Allen's fault as opposed to Lindner, but Lindner let it happen.

Sure, DanO and Wayne's guy did a pretty good job of rebuilding the farm,
but Cast has shown a big commitment to spending on the farm system, and signing foreign draft talent.. Just look at Chapman and all the other pricey Latins the Reds have signed.

Not really sure what your point is.. Surely you don't think Lindner did a better job with the farm than Cast?

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by mace

But the way it appears to me, the Reds really haven't taken on any appreciable salary.

They're no longer paying a closer who made 12.1 million last year. Volquez earned (the term applied loosely) just over 1.6. Alonso's due a million this year. Then there are the minimum salaries of Sappelt, Grandal and Boxberger. That's about (a shade under) 16 million no longer on the payroll. On the flip side, the Reds will be paying Madson 8.5 million, Marshall 3.1, Ludwick 2.5, Navarro about a million, Brackman just under a million, and Latos (could be wrong here) and Judy the minimum. That's a fraction under 17 million. So the net cash expense has been about a million--with, as I said, some margin for error there.

So with all the trades and free agents walking, you've come up with the Reds adding $1M? Here's my rough math based on Cot's:

$81M approximately according to Cot's for 2011
+$1M buyout of Cordero's 2012 contract
+$.5M raise for Arroyo in 2012
+$4M increase for Votto in 2012
+$1M increase for Chapman in 2012
+$2M increase for Cueto in 2012
+$2.3M increase for Jay Bruce
+$8.5M Madson
+$3.1M Marshall
+$2.5M Ludwick
+$1M Navarro
+$.75M increase for Hanigan
+$.8M Brackman
$27.45M increase?


-$12.125 for Cordero
-$3M with Ramon Hernandez gone
-$2.1M Edgar Renteria
-$1.75M Gomes
-$1.625M Volquez
-$1.4M Alonso's would have been increase
$22M off the books roughly?

+ increases in arbitration for Masset, Bray (signed), Arrendondo (signed), Bailey, Janish
+ increases in the minimum

Looks to me like the Reds probably added about $10M after arbitration and arbitration avoidance signings, and increasing the minimum. Unless I made a math mistake.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Not true.
No money to sign the first round pick the year that Sowers was drafted.
No money to sign Esponsia and Sardinha.. that's what started this whole ML contract for draftees fad.

The Reds consistently drafted based on signablity for a long time.

When Ty Howington flopped, John Allen publicly declared that most draft picks were "Wastes of money".
Now I agree that much of the penny pitching is probably Allen's fault as opposed to Lindner, but Lindner let it happen.

Sure, DanO and Wayne's guy did a pretty good job of rebuilding the farm,
but Cast has shown a big commitment to spending on the farm system, and signing foreign draft talent.. Just look at Chapman and all the other pricey Latins the Reds have signed.

Not really sure what your point is.. Surely you don't think Lindner did a better job with the farm than Cast?

The drafts you quoted were early. Marge and Allen to an extent had pretty much decimated the farm, and the scouting department was pretty thin thanks to Marge. Look at the 2004-2006 drafts and internationa FA signings. look at all the turnover in talent. Not all of it stuck, but Lindner was a businessman that understood the value of a foundation. And he eventually allowed one to be built. I get that you loathe the guy, but just because you walk in, doesn't mean things change right away. DanO had some very good drafts, and there was not one issue with signability. International scouting increased. Johnny Cueto is the result. That was under the Lindner/Allen watch. the momentum from that carried over to Krivsky, who STILL had to clean house in the FO, just to change the climate. And how much of that FO, scouts, development guys has Jocketty changed? very little. Sure guys come, guys go, but overall pretty intact. The current foundation, the core of the 25 man roster was signed by Carl Lindner.

Is it that hard to acknowledge that?

[IslandRed]

My basic sense of it is that ownership is doing what it can, up to a point. They seem to be supporting about as much payroll as they can with the money the team actually has. What I doubt seriously they're doing is tossing stacks of personal cash into the ballclub, or having the club take out loans to sign ballplayers. It's easy for me to wish they'd do the latter things but it's not my money, or my (posterior) that's toast if the second part of "spend money to make money" never comes to pass.

[mace]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

So with all the trades and free agents walking, you've come up with the Reds adding $1M? Here's my rough math based on Cot's:

$81M approximately according to Cot's for 2011
+$1M buyout of Cordero's 2012 contract
+$.5M raise for Arroyo in 2012
+$4M increase for Votto in 2012
+$1M increase for Chapman in 2012
+$2M increase for Cueto in 2012
+$2.3M increase for Jay Bruce
+$8.5M Madson
+$3.1M Marshall
+$2.5M Ludwick
+$1M Navarro
+$.75M increase for Hanigan
+$.8M Brackman
$27.45M increase?

-$12.125 for Cordero
-$3M with Ramon Hernandez gone
-$2.1M Edgar Renteria
-$1.75M Gomes
-$1.625M Volquez
-$1.4M Alonso's would have been increase
$22M off the books roughly?

+ increases in arbitration for Masset, Bray (signed), Arrendondo (signed), Bailey, Janish
+ increases in the minimum

Looks to me like the Reds probably added about $10M after arbitration and arbitration avoidance signings, and increasing the minimum. Unless I made a math mistake.

Good job on producing the figures. Thanks. However, I believe we're sort of talking about different things here.

Yes, the organization has to pay the salary increases, but I don't consider those to be in the equation of roster changes. You did, though, point out the additional deletions of Hernandez, Gomes and Renteria, which I'd neglected. Adding that nearly 7 million to the balance, the club has actually saved a good bit of money with its personnel moves.

Now, that's a good thing. I don't begrudge them saving money, particularly if the savings are made available for acquisitions. But to me--and I'm sure this point can be argued--the organic increases in salary are simply part of doing business. Like cost-of-living raises. All teams are faced with those. They don't reflect commitment, initiative, or decision-making on the part of ownership.

My entire point is the back-patting for the "all-in" movement. Seems to me that Jocketty has it coming. But the moves themselves have actually saved money. For that reason, I simply don't see that Castellini ought to share in the credit, at this point. Now, if he signs Cespedes, it's a different story.

[redsmetz]

Not sure if this will help, but here's the Baseball-Reference.com breakdown.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...1-roster.shtml

I think your premise may be right. I've suggested recently that this flood of activity was partly due to the club last year needing to see what exactly they had with the various MLB ready (or near ready), to sort that out and make the moves we've since seen.

Would it be fair to say that Jocketty has been given a free hand, with some limitations, to get things competitive both now and over the next several years?