Phil Castellini surprised that Opening Day tickets still unsold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

No. There were zero FA signed this off-season after Krall literally said we’d bring in guys after the Winker/Suarez deal. But I’m sure you’ll just want to piss all over those guys too despite them being solid players.

---

None of those guys are in the same stratosphere as Winker.

Who was given away so that the Reds could save future money on Suarez's contract.

This whole "Rays" thing is such a cop out. Sorry.

I am not targeting anyone in this thread, truly, I just keep hearing this on podcasts and on the radio.

The Reds absolutely need to develop from the farm. The Dodgers needs to develop from the farm, and they do (or get trade pieces to get a Mookie.) Every team needs to do this. But make no mistake, the Rays would do a whole lot better in the postseason with their system and an extra 40-70 million in payroll to fill gaps.

If the Reds payroll is 10 million less to invest more in staff and personnel to have a winner, I am all for it. But the payroll needs to be as high as it can be to compete, because the good teams in large markets, have both. We need to have development and a build within culture, but we also need to shrewdly spend what we can to the maximum if we want to beat any major market team without a whole lot of luck on our side (either in a series or just fantastic booms with all top prospects just hitting their peak.)

I feel like the media saying "Rays" gives Bob and co. license to trot out 50 million dollar payrolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

All the further it needs to go? The MLB portion of the return put up more bWAR than Winker and Suarez last year. Yes, that’s a very superficial finger in the air analysis but it’s all the further you need to go to show there’s legit baseball considerations in the move even before you factor in the prospect return.

I’m fully serious. You just cited a bunch of examples of GM speak. Every organization does that and it’s not indicative of lying or not. It’s just part of the game. Give straight lies with specificity. RTG did.

---

We disagree.

It's totally lying.

You're an apologist who's okay with that. I'm not.

End of discussion.

Assuming about $290 million in revenue this year, their payroll (as of today) is under 40% of revenue. (37.9%). I'd wager, that once they start "adding" again in a few years they'll be right back in that 48% range, which means all these contracts being taken off the books this year is never going to be used as payflex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Not at all. If anyone wants to stay plugged into the Reds at this point, then by all means I’m not going to try to stop them.


I’m just going to be real though when people start suggesting the Reds are going to go on a FA spending spree ever again. Castellanos and Moose were the 2 biggest FA contracts they’ve ever given out, and then they immediately crapped their pants and got cold feet at the first sign of mild adversity, and absolutely slashed payroll to the bone and have been coming up with a million pathetic excuses why.

They will never ever spend that kind of money on free agents ever again.

---

I agree they will never spend on FAs like that again. I am also not sure if they should. Not giving the Reds an excuse, just being realistic.

For the record, you want to tell a poster his opinion is so bad he must be on drugs, thats cool, but I certainly don't think a comparable response should be surprising to anyone from the peanut gallery (Leatherpants), lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

It's remarkable that a lie as easily debunked as that continues to swindle intelligent people who pay attention to the sport.

---

Last season they had a huge war chest like they will in the coming years they had the biggest FA off-season in franchise history. And frankly I don’t mind if they pocket some money. I don’t begrudge people making money especially when they likely borrowed against the value of the team to facilitate payrolls over what the market size dictated in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

We disagree.

It's totally lying.

You're an apologist who's okay with that. I'm not.

End of discussion.

---

I hate the apologist crap. It gets so tired when the line is used. I’m not an apologist. Speaking to the public about private business dealings is like politics. There’s going to always be a certain level of BS that goes with it. Your examples IMO were general statements that fall under the BS that the vast majority of people in such positions regurgitate. It’s GM speak. I’m interested in specific out and out lies not GM speak has a certain level of BS type stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

It's remarkable that a lie as easily debunked as that continues to swindle intelligent people who pay attention to the sport.

---

Not just here in Cincinnati.

Generally speaking, you should disbelieve any sports owner about what the team can/cannot afford unless they're willing to open their books and show you the balance sheet.

The Braves had to do that, and it turns out they were pocketing over $100M last year alone.

https://sports.yahoo.com/champion-br...173334889.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Last season they had a huge war chest like they will in the coming years they had the biggest FA off-season in franchise history. And frankly I don’t mind if they pocket some money. I don’t begrudge people making money especially when they likely borrowed against the value of the team to facilitate payrolls over what the market size dictated in the past.

---

A) then they shouldn't lie about putting every dollar back into the team

B) They have never had a payroll over what the market size can handle (and this is easy to confirm, on a revenue percentage basis)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by missionhockey21

This whole "Rays" thing is such a cop out. Sorry.

I am not targeting anyone in this thread, truly, I just keep hearing this on podcasts and on the radio.

The Reds absolutely need to develop from the farm. The Dodgers needs to develop from the farm, and they do (or get trade pieces to get a Mookie.) Every team needs to do this. But make no mistake, the Rays would do a whole lot better in the postseason with their system and an extra 40-70 million in payroll to fill gaps.

If the Reds payroll is 10 million less to invest more in staff and personnel to have a winner, I am all for it. But the payroll needs to be as high as it can be to compete, because the good teams in large markets, have both. We need to have development and a build within culture, but we also need to shrewdly spend what we can to the maximum if we want to beat any major market team without a whole lot of luck on our side (either in a series or just fantastic booms with all top prospects just hitting their peak.)

I feel like the media saying "Rays" gives Bob and co. license to trot out 50 million dollar payrolls.

---

We also should not be bringing up the Dodgers, though. They gave Trevor Bauer $40 mil a year or whatever, and then we he did whatever it is he did and got suspended, they don't even bat an eye and go out and sign Freddie Freeman. They are playing with monopoly money.

I can only speak for myself, but when I bring up the Rays I am not saying be cheap for the sake of being cheap. I am saying constant roster churn with a focus on acquiring and developing pre-arb talent. When quality players start to get expensive trade them to the Padres or Dodgers for quality prospects. Quality being the key term, there. If you do this enough time you can get to the point the Rays and A's are at where they are able to consistently compete. The issue isn't their model, the issue is not fully committing. The Reds have one foot in holding on to veterans and signing aging free agents as main pieces and trading for prospects. You cannot do that. It is a recipe for mediocrity. Votto is another issue. I love him, my favorite player ever, we all love him. However, was it wise to give that money to a first basement through his age 40 year? If we are being honest, nah, probably not. For better or worse, his contract has hamstrung the team for years now by eating up 20% of the payroll.

When you run with the Rays model you cannot be fixated on the names on the backs of the jerseys, they are not long for the team in most cases and it is highly unlikely you will see them for more than 5 years. The only name that matters is the one on the front. The Reds try to make both equally important without fully committing to either and as a result they are a perennial 75-80 win team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

I hate the apologist crap. It gets so tired when the line is used. I’m not an apologist. Speaking to the public about private business dealings is like politics. There’s going to always be a certain level of BS that goes with it. Your examples IMO were general statements that fall under the BS that the vast majority of people in such positions regurgitate. It’s GM speak. I’m interested in specific out and out lies not GM speak has a certain level of BS type stuff.

---

If you're okay with lying after asking when have the Reds lied, I'd argue that's pretty much a picture-perfect example of being an apologist.

YMMV.

Fwiw, any interaction with the public could be considered general BS statements. I find that troubling, to say the least. Tell me the truth or be prepared to be called for lying.

And they are lies. We know that. You've admitted it. They're just not lies you find objectionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Not just here in Cincinnati.

Generally speaking, you should disbelieve any sports owner about what the team can/cannot afford unless they're willing to open their books and show you the balance sheet.

The Braves had to do that, and it turns out they were pocketing over $100M last year alone.

https://sports.yahoo.com/champion-br...173334889.html

---

Exactly. There’s a certain level of BS that goes into all of this type of stuff. Owners are going to make their money and use GM speak to cover their butts. I’m more interested in lies that go to their overarching plan communicated to the fan base. I’m that regard there has been incompetence. But incompetence isn’t lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

If you're okay with lying after asking when have the Reds lied, I'd argue that's pretty much a picture-perfect example of being an apologist.

YMMV.

---

My point was every freaking sports organization BSes and fudges about the stuff you brought up. Sure. It’s lies. But it’s lies that would occur under pretty much every other ownership situation in all of sports. Changing whatever won’t change that. I’m more interested where they have lies outside of the all sports organizations BS about this stuff range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

No. There were zero FA signed this off-season after Krall literally said we’d bring in guys after the Winker/Suarez deal. But I’m sure you’ll just want to piss all over those guys too despite them being solid players.

---

Thank god we used Jesse Winker to salary dump Suarez so we could sign a mid 30s declining Tommy Pham. Everything is going to be okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Thank god we used Jesse Winker to salary dump Suarez so we could sign a mid 30s declining Tommy Pham. Everything is going to be okay.

---

Thank god the Reds got 2 MLB players that outperformed Suarez and Winker in terms of bWAR last season. Thank god we got one top notch pitching prospect who is K’ing an absurd amount of batters/9 and will likely appear in the MLB this year. Thank god the Reds got another guy with crazy electric stuff who profiles to at least be an MLB reliever. Thank god they’ll have Suarez’s money to spend to supplement the group of kids the next 3 years. And yes thank god for Solano and Pham who each outperformed Suarez last year for the same money and it wasn’t even close.

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Thank god they’ll have Suarez’s money to spend to supplement the group of kids the next 3 years. .

---

You should stop saying this, because it's just wrong, because they would have money to do that anyway.


They've got money to do that this year and stay under the magical 48% of revenue they seem to want to stay under.

Reds payroll: 99 mil

League average payroll: 134 mil

Yeah they’re definitely going to reallocate that money lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Thank god the Reds got 2 MLB players that outperformed Suarez and Winker in terms of bWAR last season..

---

Who did the Reds get who outperformed Winker's 2.7 bWAR last season?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

My point was every freaking sports organization BSes and fudges about the stuff you brought up.

---

They indeed do not all lie about salary as Red ownership has done every year since they bought control of the team. (And before.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Regardless of the level of success achieved, I think this group has been more or less honest with what they are trying to do over the years. The execution has just been bad. Despite the pissing and moaning over the off-season, I can see how they may be seeing the light. Focusing on young, mostly high velocity arms. Moving on from guys who had one dimensional softball type games no matter how much fans liked them. Freeing up a large war chest of money for years to come. Brining in older but solid veteran bats that get on base to supplement the kids in their development. As much as it hurt to let some of the last iteration of the team go, I can see where this builds in a positive direction.

---

I don't agree but let's say they have been 100% honest with what they were trying to do and the execution has just been poor. I'm now being asked to blindly follow the same folks that have been at the controls for repeated failures in execution over the course of 16 years to suddenly develop a sustained winner.

Reducing Jesse Winker to a softball player when he is one of the best hitters in MLB and suggesting his production doesn't match is popularity is incredibly shortsighted.

A war chest sounds great but you still have to replace production and we aren't talking about $50M a year to do so. We are talking maybe $10-20M. You see how fast that gets gobbled up on Pham, Solano and Minor.

I'm glad you can see where this is going in a positive direction but dismissing the dissenting opinion as "butthurt" isn't really adding to the discussion either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

Reds payroll: 99 mil

League average payroll: 134 mil

Yeah they’re definitely going to reallocate that money lmao

---

When taking inflation into consideration, the Reds payroll this year is roughly the same as it was in 2010. They had a revenue in 2010 of $179 million, which is worth about $233 million today. They should have somewhere in the neighborhood of $290-$300 million in revenue this year.

The Reds should have about $100 million in their "war chest" from 2016-2018 that they've never spent. This is the year they should have used it, coming off a winning season and with expanded playoffs. That's why some of us are so freaking mad.

I get the thinking that they want to trade talent in order to build for the future but I'm underwhelmed with the return. 20 yr old hard throwers in A Ball are a low percentage gamble. There's everything from injury to control problems that can derail them on the way to the major leagues. Other than that, all I'm seeing in return are bit players on a major league team. This is a low percentage way to build your team for the future. They're insulting our intelligence by thinking that we'll buy in. I'll frankly put it this way: we have in recent years traded more highly touted prospects than these players we've received. Josiah Gray, Taylor Trammell and Gregorious just to name a few. Why can't we at least expect to get that sort of return for our veterans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

Who did the Reds get who outperformed Winker's 2.7 bWAR last season?

---

Suarez had minus .7. The whole deal saw 2 WAR leave the Reds. Dunn and Fraley were each over 1 apiece.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeatherPants

The Reds should have about $100 million in their "war chest" from 2016-2018 that they've never spent. This is the year they should have used it, coming off a winning season and with expanded playoffs. That's why some of us are so freaking mad.

---

Did they not spend that in 2019, 2020 and 2021?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Suarez had minus .7. The whole deal saw 2 WAR leave the Reds. Dunn and Fraley were each over 1 apiece.

---

You realize it doesn't work that way, right?

Winker was the best player they dealt. Unless it was Gray, who was dealt for a kid with all of five Rookie Ball games under his belt. Unless it was Miley, who was just dumped for nothing. Unless it was Barnhart, who was dumped for a kid hitting under the Mendoza line two years running.

All of them were better players than anyone the Reds acquired.

And you want us to believe the team got better this year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

16 years? The Reds were arguably the best team in baseball in 2012. Covid in 2020 really jacked up the first all in Reds team since then.

---

And have won ZERO playoff series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

You realize it doesn't work that way, right?

---

How does it work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeatherPants

When taking inflation into consideration, the Reds payroll this year is roughly the same as it was in 2010. They had a revenue in 2010 of $179 million, which is worth about $233 million today. They should have somewhere in the neighborhood of $290-$300 million in revenue this year.

---

And it had been more than that for like the last 3 seasons. We all know they are cutting payroll. When they said realign resources we all knew it meant that. And they truly did realign resources into younger talent. Then reinvested some of the savings into shorter term contracts for vets. If you don’t like the plan that’s fine. Quit acting like they lied about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

And it had been more than that for like the last 3 seasons. We all know they are cutting payroll. When they said realign resources we all knew it meant that. And they truly did realign resources into younger talent. Then reinvested some of the savings into shorter term contracts for vets. If you don’t like the plan that’s fine. Quit acting like they lied about it.

---

They did lie about it. They lied when they said they were spending equal to what they earned. They lied when they said they'd put the money back in the team. They lied when they said they were aligning resources.

So many lies.

You're okay with that.

We're not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

You realize it doesn't work that way, right?

---

Yes. We can add up everything and plug it into a formula. I did a quick and dirty. You do realize Suárez was among the worst everyday starters in the league last year? You realize the Reds owed him money for this and the next two seasons. You realize they basically have a bunch of guys that can cover third in the bigs and more on the way. The extra money will be worth it in the coming years. Not saying it’s a lock, but it’s not surprise me at all if Pham and Soloano outperformed Suarez and Winker this year. Let alone factoring in anything Fraley, Dunn, Willamson, Phillips, or guys brought in later with Suarez’s money do. Winker is a tough guy to lose. But he’s a very one dimensional player and Suarez has just flat been terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

They did lie about it. They lied when they said they were spending equal to what they earned. They lied when they said they'd put the money back in the team. They lied when they said they were aligning resources.

So many lies.

You're okay with that.

We're not.

---

I can see how the rest of that is usual GM speak type BS. They flat didn’t lie when they said they are realigning resources. They are. You just don’t like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Did they not spend that in 2019, 2020 and 2021?

---

No.


Here's the percentage of payroll the Reds have spent since Bob took over. In 2019, 2020, and 2021 they just went back to (slightly less) than what they had spent the years leading up to the rebuild.

Revenue/Payroll/Percentage

2006 146/60.9 (41.7)
2007 161/68.9 (42.7%)
2008 171/74.1 (43.3%)
2009 166/73.5 (44.2%)
2010 179/76.1 (42.5%)
2011 185/80.8 (43.6%)
2012 202/87.8 (43.4%)
2013 209/106.8 (51.1%)
2014 227/114.2 (50.3%)
2015 237/115.4 (48.7%)
2016 229/89.9 (39.2%)
2017 243/95.4 (39.2%)
2018 257/101.3 (39.4%)
2019 276/126.6 (45.8%)
2020 114/55.4 (48.5%)
2021 266/122.2 (45.9%)





https://www.forbes.com/teams/cincinn...h=48e41b783003

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ds-since-2006/

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.co...ncinnati-reds/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

I can see how the rest of that is usual GM speak type BS. They flat didn’t lie when they said they are realigning resources. They are. You just don’t like it.

---

Unless they mean they're realigning them into their pockets, they're lying.

You've been shown the numbers ad nauseum, and it's like you can't see them.

It's remarkable the lengths you'll go to in order not to accept that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeatherPants

No.


Here's the percentage of payroll the Reds have spent since Bob took over. In 2019, 2020, and 2021 they just went back to (slightly less) than what they had spent the years leading up to the rebuild.

Revenue/Payroll/Percentage

2006 146/60.9 (41.7)
2007 161/68.9 (42.7%)
2008 171/74.1 (43.3%)
2009 166/73.5 (44.2%)
2010 179/76.1 (42.5%)
2011 185/80.8 (43.6%)
2012 202/87.8 (43.4%)
2013 209/106.8 (51.1%)
2014 227/114.2 (50.3%)
2015 237/115.4 (48.7%)
2016 229/89.9 (39.2%)
2017 243/95.4 (39.2%)
2018 257/101.3 (39.4%)
2019 276/126.6 (45.8%)
2020 114/55.4 (48.5%)
2021 266/122.2 (45.9%)





https://www.forbes.com/teams/cincinn...h=48e41b783003

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ds-since-2006/

https://legacy.baseballprospectus.co...ncinnati-reds/

---

So the Reds spent the 2010 amount on the team in 2019, 2020 and 2021 when factoring for inflation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

So the Reds spent the 2010 amount on the team in 2019, 2020 and 2021 when factoring for inflation?

---

But they had even higher revenues, when factoring in inflation.

Forget the "real" numbers, look at the percentages.

They aren't ever using payflex money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Yes. We can add up everything and plug it into a formula...

---

No, we really can't.

You assume so much in your little hypothetical here.

We don't know that the Reds are going to spend that money on anything. They say they are. They have a history of pocketing that extra cash, as shown in LP's work over the entire course of this thread. You should probably read those. We don't know we have a bunch of guys who can cover 3B. We have Moustakas and Solano currently-- both of those are question marks. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if either Pham or Solano come within half of Winker's production. Fraley is a cypher. Dunn has a bum shoulder. Phillips is a scratch-off lottery ticket. You assume they'll somehow provide excess value...?

Finally, and I can't believe this has to be said: neither Solano nor Pham has anything to do with Winker. The Reds could have signed both and Michael Conforto and a whole outfield of producers. Instead, they cheaped out. Again. They took their cash and went home. You want to add free agents to trade acquisitions to prospects. Pretty easy to make the math work if you can add everyone possible.

But it doesn't make the deal or the Reds any more palatable.

I base my thoughts on what I see the Reds *do*. I ceased believing what they say. At least for the time being.

If I squint at what they’re doing and do best case/worst case, I can see where they think they might have a successful season. I’m not bought into it, but on a certain planet, I can see how they think they might compete.

So, I’ll wait and watch and hope for the best. I got bigger fish to fry for now so I’m not wasting emotion on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

Unless they mean they're realigning them into their pockets, they're lying.

You've been shown the numbers ad nauseum, and it's like you can't see them.

It's remarkable the lengths you'll go to in order not to accept that.

---

Realigning into removing older guys who won’t repeat their performance like Miley. Or finally trading a guy a year too early in Gray. Or removing a deadweight contract like Suarez. Losing Winker sucks. I was one of his chief defenders when everyone wanted to trade him for a bag of balls. I even said last season I could see him having a single season that tops a peak Joey Votto year.

And no crap they’re pocketing some of the money. I’ve said that and I said I flat don’t care. They are running a business and not a charity. As Caveat Emperor posted unless a team has publicly show their finances they are going to BS about it. You’re getting upset over the level of BS that practically any ownership group spins. I’m more interested in them lying about player moves. Yes. Money was a consideration. Duh. But the player moves they made this off-season can be connected to legit baseball reasons that don’t take too much squinting to see.

Do any of the owners have management contracts with the Reds?