Then we agree. They're dominant because they have $400mill plus to spendQuote:
Originally Posted by shaggy
Printable View
Then we agree. They're dominant because they have $400mill plus to spendQuote:
Originally Posted by shaggy
Well kind of but I say they are dominant because they have money to spend and are smart in how they spend it while also being great at scouting and development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Ray
The Mets are kind of proving that point that just because you have $400M to spend does not make you dominant.
I don't understand your hedging here. They're not going to be "dominant" with $200 less million to spend, let alone what the Reds are spending. We agree that they've built an excellent organization. A key pillar of that organization is having tons of money to spend.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaggy
So, it's because of the money they spend on team payroll AND the money they spend on scouting, analytics and development. But, it's not about the money. Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Ray
Then why aren't hte Mets dominant with their $400mm payroll?
The Dodgers are dominant primarily because they have the smartest people working for them. They are the Rays, but with money. Actually, they are better run than the Rays as well--- by far, and that is saying something.
The Dodgers would still be kicking everyone's behind on a $200mm payroll. The Rays and Brewers win, with a $130 and $100mm payroll on average. Heck, is the Rays payroll even near $100mm the past few years?
If the Dodgers didn't have money to spend, they would still be successfull-- they just wouldn't splurge on the likes of Tucker (whom they won a WS without,) Hernandez-- go overboard spending like $30mm plus on Diaz and Treinan.
The Dodgers would be perfectly fine with a $200mm payroll and dominate. They would still win the division almost every year with a Brewers-esque payroll. Because they are smart as heck-- FRiedman won with a small payroll in Tampa-- you don't think he could do it in LA?
The Mets suck, because they are incompetent, and money can't cover for that. Our GM doesn't have a solid track record spending money in FA now does he? It's not always about the money. Does money help give cover up more mistakes and give you more chances for success? Yes, but it's not a guarantee--- see the Mets.
Maybe if our owners didn't insult the fans- the Reds would have better attendance and more money to spend. They would have more people watching the games-- which is more money. It's not just the performance on the field and drafting and development. Cincinnati could be better at bringing fans to the games and marketing and leveraging their position to bring in more revenue. But it starts by being smart enough to build a consistent winner to bring in the fans and bring in more money.
Put Friedman in Cincinnati and the Reds would consistently win 90 games on a $130mm payroll. The Reds would be the Brewers, but better.
I'll take Friedman and a $150mm payroll, over the Mets GM and a $400mm payroll.
The Mets are poorly run. A poorly run franchise won't win even if they have $400mill to spendQuote:
Originally Posted by Ladeda
How good would the Dodgers be without Ohtani and Yamamoto? They signed Yamamoto to a $325 million contract plus a $50mill posting fee. Most teams, including our Reds can't afford that. It's not great scouting that they discovered these two talents. It was money. After spending over $500mill last year they had another $240 to give Kyle Tucker this year. Again, that's not scouting. Everyone knew Tucker was a talent
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...cord-515m-2025
Did you notice how good Blake Snell was when we faced them in the playoffs last year? How'd they get him? They gave him a $182mill contract. This year they decided they needed bullpen help. They went out and committed about $70mill to Edwin Diaz.
This is how their team is built. This is what they do to set themselves apart from everyone else. They could not run their team like this on a $200 mill payroll. If you disagree with me, I hope the new CBA forces them to cut payroll and then we'll see
The most successful thing the Reds ownership group has done is to convince the fanbase that it just isn't possible to win games unless you are in a big market and spend tons of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by texasdave
The Brewers have been pretty dominant the last 8 years or so while spending between $100 - $135 Million a year on payroll or you could say similar to the Reds who have 4 winning seasons in the same time frame.
So yeah you can be dominant without spending a ton of money if you spend wisely, scout well and make smart trades.
I agree with you that its possible to win on the cheap, but let's not pretend that the money isn't a huge advantage. For one, money is the reason they have the people in the front office that they have. I seriously doubt that the reds could afford Friedman.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaggy
They also have the chance to cut bait on big dollar mistakes instead of suffering through them. Money is also the reason that they can trade those cheap, solid prospects that they develop for big dollar stars instead of having to live through their growing pains. They never have to worry about a move backfiring. They can just keep spending until they get it right.
Every phase of the organization has an advantage because of money.
I don't know...The Dodgers have been a well ran organization since the 1950's,
They've almost always finished at or near the top of the league or division even before free agency.
I wonder if Bill Gates has any advantages over a Walmart greeter
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ohtani has decided he wants to win a Cy Young this year, so he's putting up absurd pitching stats.
Munetaka Murakami has 104 PA's in 53 of them he had a no contact result (BB/K) in his 82 AB's he K'd 32 times, had a Sac Fly and hit the ball 50 times, he has 21 hits, 11 singles and 10 HR's
He is Mr. True Outcome
Phillies release Taijuan Walker
White Sox DFA old friend Lucas Sims
Milwaukee losses again today. That has them situated in last place, 2.5 games back. Breaks my heart.