Phil Castellini surprised that Opening Day tickets still unsold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoneyInTheBank

I think you may be mistaking my (and others) skepticism for "not giving it a chance". I'm watching, I'm hoping but it feels like a bad re-run

---

That’s fair. And I appreciate the discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!

To be fair, I missed the butthurt comments. It was pretty fast and furious earlier.

---

And I said you were trollish because you ignore basic facts (ie, payroll has largely stayed in the same or dropped in terms of percentage) in favor of your narrative (the Reds spend lots and lots of money at times and are just peak and valleying as a "normal" team does).

Someone who purposefully ignores an argument that proves his opinion invalid-- as you have exhibited-- is trolling. LP showed that the Reds have not increased spending as the poster claimed-- the spending percentages have only stayed below 48% or dropped throughout the years this group has had controlling interest. That's not an opinion-- it's fact. Further, obscuring those facts by moving goalposts (they've never lied, one lie, one lie that matters, lies that aren't typical GM speak, lies bother but oh well) or by changing your claim ($95M base salary) aren't exactly great looks either. Neither is telling someone they're butthurt. All are examples of trollish behavior.

I'm fine with your opinion-- that Red ownership will now magically decide to grow their hearts three sizes this time for sure and plow payflex back into the team because *reasons* despite the fact that they've NEVER done that before-- standing on its own as an opinion. You won't hear me say a thing about it, other than I think it's remarkably naive. (As others have already written.)

The rest of it is trollish.

And I see the semantic argument between being a troll and acting trollish and can have that conversation too, if you'd like. There's a difference between being and acting. In this case, you're acting like a troll. I'm sure I've done it before. So have many who've posted on this board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

As for spending money saved, this off-season, they got money off the books, said we can add now, and literally added pieces near each day for a week straight. If you don’t like the pieces fair enough, but if they were just looking to pocket the money like buttheads or whatever, they’d have just pocketed the money.

---

Come on man -- look at the "added pieces" they've brought in since January 1 (source: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/teams/.../transactions/)

Tommy Pham - 1 year contract
Hunter Stickland - 1 year contract
Donovan Solano - 1 year contract
Colin Moran - 1 year contract

This is garbage / dumpster diving. This is, in absolutely no way, an effort to win or compete in any meaningful sense. Ownership is offering precisely zero (0) market rate contracts to quality ballplayers in free agency. They're committing no money past this year to anyone. Every move they've made has been to cut long-term costs and add young, cheap prospects. It's the same nonsense we dealt with during the Lost Decade, where the club chased this fairy tale of a full team of 25 year olds, all making pre-arb money and winning a World Series on the budget of a used family sedan.

And the joke of all this is that the club isn't even willing to spend a bit of money to get better prospects. They could've undoubtedly got a better return by trading Winker straight up somewhere and not forcing a team to take on Suarez's salary -- but they didn't, because the real goal of the Winker trade was to get Suarez's contract off the books. They could've gotten literally anything for Wade Miley if they'd spent the $2M to pick up his option and then trade him, but they just cut the man and let him walk for no return to save a buck.

I don't get standing up for this business model. They're pissing on your head and offering to sell you a Reds-logo umbrella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

And I said you were trollish because you ignore basic facts (ie, payroll has largely stayed in the same or dropped in terms of percentage) in favor of your narrative (the Reds spend lots and lots of money at times and are just peak and valleying as a "normal" team does).

Someone who purposefully ignores an argument that proves his opinion invalid-- as you have exhibited-- is trolling. LP showed that the Reds have not increased spending as the poster claimed-- the spending percentages have only stayed below 48% or dropped throughout the years this group has had controlling interest. That's not an opinion-- it's fact. Further, obscuring those facts by moving goalposts (they've never lied, one lie, one lie that matters, lies that aren't typical GM speak, lies bother but oh well) or by changing your claim ($95M base salary) aren't exactly great looks either. Neither is telling someone they're butthurt. All are examples of trollish behavior.

I'm fine with your opinion-- that Red ownership will now magically decide to grow their hearts three sizes this time for sure and plow payflex back into the team because *reasons* despite the fact that they've NEVER done that before-- standing on its own as an opinion. You won't hear me say a thing about it, other than I think it's remarkably naive. (As others have already written.)

The rest of it is trollish.

And I see the semantic argument between being a troll and acting trollish and can have that conversation too, if you'd like. There's a difference between being and acting. In this case, you're acting like a troll. I'm sure I've done it before. So have many who've posted on this board.

---

I know these are taken from another thread, but I do expect posters to have a singular voice and opinion. That could be on me.

e: Winker and Suarez traded to Seattle


Originally Posted by LeatherPants

You have to spend money on somebody. Reds have $44 million of guaranteed money on the books for next year, and Votto and Moose account for all of it.


My response:

It’s almost like the plan was to get younger. Let prospects sink or swim this year and invest in vets in a targeted fashion next offseason.

Re: Winker and Suarez traded to Seattle


Originally Posted by Old school 1983

It’s almost like the plan was to get younger. Let prospects sink or swim this year and invest in vets in a targeted fashion next offseason.

Leather Pants:

They might even break $75 million in payroll next year doing that. Fantastic.

Here’s the link if you think I’m a troll and fudging things: https://www.redszone.com/forums/show...Seattle/page66

It was clear we were talking 2022 and 2023 dollars. Leather Pants then tried to adjust for inflation for 2010 to show it’s really $75M.

His belief is the Reds won’t spend any of the money that has come off the books in future seasons, despite his own percentage of revenue analysis demonstrating that this is clearly not the case in recent years. There’s no reason to believe they won’t go back to normal spending habits or at least closer to them to supplement the devolving prospect talent when the time comes. Events as recent as the 2019-2020 off-season show this. The Reds have gone beyond triplicate of $44M in recent years and double $75M in recent years. Again, Leather Pants’s own work shows this. Unless the team is on the verge of economic collapse, there is zero reason to believe that the Reds will have a $75M roster in 2023 let alone a $45M one.

As far as what the Reds budget is for the MLB team, we can glean knowledge from analytics like the one Learherpants did, but we will never actually know unless the team is forced to show an actual public accounting of its finances. For all we know the team took a bigger loss during COVID and they have to make it up. Maybe they are just pocketing it. It doesn’t matter. They will do what they will do with the money regardless of what they tell the public. To me, that’s why things ownership says about what they are spending is mostly noise and might as well be Charlie Brown’s mom speaking. You’re going to get budgetary nonsense from any ownership group. If the Reds were consistently grossly underspending on all aspects of the team, it’d be an issue. They haven’t done that recently. Whatever the owners say is noise and I expect it to fall in the mostly BS category. Sure it’s a lie. And I don’t like lies. But you’d be getting similar lies from just about any management group, so that makes it immaterial to me. It’s a built in part of the game. What matters is the competency in executing a plan and the honesty expressed in that. To me, as far as that aspect goes, the Reds have generally been honest since 2010, however, the competence and patience has been subpar. Lastly, doing realignment or rebuild or whatever you want to call it and the owners making some money in the process aren’t mutually exclusive things. Both could be occurring at the same time

To my next point, spending this year. We don’t know what number Krall was given as a budget. Like I said. That stuff is speculation and noise. But we do know that for the next week after Krall said he was under budget, the Reds added near a player a day. And some
Of these guys are solid competent MLB players. We also know that this occurred right after Suarez was traded. It’s not a leap in logic to say, they spent Suarez’s money on other pieces. Sure that requires some assumption, and it’s fair to disagree. It’s another thing to act like I’m pulling that out of the sky and am trolling.

I apologize if the butthurt comment rubbed people thr wrong way, but I really don’t know what else to call blatant hyperbole and excessive negativity. I could post multiple more examples but the one I posted above seems the most germane to the discussion. It’s sucks that Winker is gone. Everyone else that has been shipped out is arguably declining or just kinda meh as a player. But Winker et al being shipped out doesn’t mean the Reds are all of a sudden going to start running out MLB payrolls of between $44-$75 million dollars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Come on man -- look at the "added pieces" they've brought in since January 1 (source: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/teams/.../transactions/)

Tommy Pham - 1 year contract
Hunter Stickland - 1 year contract
Donovan Solano - 1 year contract
Colin Moran - 1 year contract

This is garbage / dumpster diving. This is, in absolutely no way, an effort to win or compete in any meaningful sense. Ownership is offering precisely zero (0) market rate contracts to quality ballplayers in free agency. They're committing no money past this year to anyone. Every move they've made has been to cut long-term costs and add young, cheap prospects. It's the same nonsense we dealt with during the Lost Decade, where the club chased this fairy tale of a full team of 25 year olds, all making pre-arb money and winning a World Series on the budget of a used family sedan.

And the joke of all this is that the club isn't even willing to spend a bit of money to get better prospects. They could've undoubtedly got a better return by trading Winker straight up somewhere and not forcing a team to take on Suarez's salary -- but they didn't, because the real goal of the Winker trade was to get Suarez's contract off the books. They could've gotten literally anything for Wade Miley if they'd spent the $2M to pick up his option and then trade him, but they just cut the man and let him walk for no return to save a buck.

I don't get standing up for this business model. They're pissing on your head and offering to sell you a Reds-logo umbrella.

---

Like I’ve reiterated in other threads. The plan seems to be to let the kids develop this year and likely heavily invest a la the 2019-2020 off-season once there’s a better picture of who is sinking and who is swimming. That’s why we are seeing the 1 year deals. And sure, some of these guys are dumpster dives. Others aren’t. Pham, Solano, Stirkland, and to a lesser extent, Minor have all been competent MLB talent as recently as last season. They aren’t future building blocks, but they were never meant to be. It’s likely to upgrade the team this year, bring in some veteran presence for the kids, and maybe sneak into the expanded playoffs if things break right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

I apologize if the butthurt comment rubbed people thr wrong way, but I really don’t know what else to call blatant hyperbole and excessive negativity. I could post multiple more examples but the one I posted above seems the most germane to the discussion. It’s sucks that Winker is gone. Everyone else that has been shipped out is arguably declining or just kinda meh as a player. But Winker et al being shipped out doesn’t mean the Reds are all of a sudden going to start running out MLB payrolls of between $44-$75 million dollars

---

1. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder. So is hyperbole.

2. No, not every player is arguably declining or kinda meh as a player. Too, that hides the idea that even good players might not be as good, but are still far, far better than their replacements.

3. I notice your level of dollars spent and expectations from the Reds' ownership keeps going down. That's telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Like I’ve reiterated in other threads. The plan seems to be to let the kids develop this year and likely heavily invest a la the 2019-2020 off-season once there’s a better picture of who is sinking and who is swimming. That’s why we are seeing the 1 year deals. And sure, some of these guys are dumpster dives. Others aren’t. Pham, Solano, Stirkland, and to a lesser extent, Minor have all been competent MLB talent as recently as last season. They aren’t future building blocks, but they were never meant to be. It’s likely to upgrade the team this year, bring in some veteran presence for the kids, and maybe sneak into the expanded playoffs if things break right.

---

This team is a mortal lock to lose 90 games and isn't sneaking anywhere except off to Florida for a morning tee time in October.

And, again, if the goal is to build from within and develop the kids -- why are we letting Wade Miley walk out the door for nothing when keeping him to flip for a prospect was $2M? And why are we packaging in a bad salary with one of our most tradable assets and reducing our return haul?

This is the same turd salad that cheap ownership groups around the league serve to their fanbase: "Hey, if the kids all hit their upside projections, stay healthy, and we get a few good bounces, we can compete this year!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

And I said you were trollish because you ignore basic facts (ie, payroll has largely stayed in the same or dropped in terms of percentage) in favor of your narrative (the Reds spend lots and lots of money at times and are just peak and valleying as a "normal" team does).

Someone who purposefully ignores an argument that proves his opinion invalid-- as you have exhibited-- is trolling. LP showed that the Reds have not increased spending as the poster claimed-- the spending percentages have only stayed below 48% or dropped throughout the years this group has had controlling interest. That's not an opinion-- it's fact. Further, obscuring those facts by moving goalposts (they've never lied, one lie, one lie that matters, lies that aren't typical GM speak, lies bother but oh well) or by changing your claim ($95M base salary) aren't exactly great looks either. Neither is telling someone they're butthurt. All are examples of trollish behavior.

I'm fine with your opinion-- that Red ownership will now magically decide to grow their hearts three sizes this time for sure and plow payflex back into the team because *reasons* despite the fact that they've NEVER done that before-- standing on its own as an opinion. You won't hear me say a thing about it, other than I think it's remarkably naive. (As others have already written.)

The rest of it is trollish.

And I see the semantic argument between being a troll and acting trollish and can have that conversation too, if you'd like. There's a difference between being and acting. In this case, you're acting like a troll. I'm sure I've done it before. So have many who've posted on this board.

---

When did you call me a troll? What did I do that was trollish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

This team is a mortal lock to lose 90 games and isn't sneaking anywhere except off to Florida for a morning tee time in October.

And, again, if the goal is to build from within and develop the kids -- why are we letting Wade Miley walk out the door for nothing when keeping him to flip for a prospect was $2M? And why are we packaging in a bad salary with one of our most tradable assets and reducing our return haul?

This is the same turd salad that cheap ownership groups around the league serve to their fanbase: "Hey, if the kids all hit their upside projections, stay healthy, and we get a few good bounces, we can compete this year!"

---

Mortal lock? Nah.. a lock if they flip guys at the trade deadline.

But in this division you can see a lot of bad parity and a lot of that is why 90 games might not happen.

Looks a lot like the NFC central from the black and blue days when a 9-7 record got you in the playoffs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

1. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder. So is hyperbole.

2. No, not every player is arguably declining or kinda meh as a player. Too, that hides the idea that even good players might not be as good, but are still far, far better than their replacements.

3. I notice your level of dollars spent and expectations from the Reds' ownership keeps going down. That's telling.

---

1. Of course excessive and hyperbole are subjective. But let’s use some specificity I’ll stick to the example I brought up as it is the most pertinent to the discussion here. Do you or anyone else think the Reds will have a $44M to $75M MLB payroll in the coming seasons? Anyone answering honestly will say no. Leather Pants’s own research shows this. The Reds are spending less of their overall revenue on the MLB payroll than in recent years and they are still $20-$25M above the high end of that comment. Recent history, namely the 2019-2020 off-season shows that the Reds can and will spend money.
2. Let’s just make a list.

Winker-at prime that’s why I excluded him from the declining/meh list
Gray-still good but injury concerns and declining.
Barnhart- 0.2 bWAR last year. Top prospect replacement In house. Likable player. But Meh
Miley-Extremely unlikely to repeat his performance from last year. Declining.
Suarez-Declined to the point of being a detriment. Might bounce back a little but might not. Declining/Meh

As far as the replacements, it’s not just about this year. Guys like Lodolo and Greene need to break into the rotation. It’s time. Both have star potential. So who do you let go of to do that? The declining/injury prone guys with larger salaries, Miley and Gray, or the younger guys with more control and more talent, Castillo and Mahle.

With the position players, Cast was never coming back anyway. Who was the great loss other than Winker? The quick answer is no one. And Winker is tremendous with the bat, but his severe lacking in every other aspect of the game drags down his overall contribution. Great but flawed player with injury concerns. Suarez was arguably the worst everyday position player in the league last year. Getting rid of his contract for the next 3 seasons was a godsend.

I’m sure you’ll harp on this, but Pham and Solano are basically a wash with Suarez salary wise. Each outperformed Suarez last year. Both got on base at a decently high clip last year. Are they world beaters? No. But they are competent MLB players. As is Strickland and to a lesser extent minor. I get these guys are likely to not be as good as Cast and Winker last year. But they’ll likely easily exceed Suarez and a chunk of Winker’s production. As I’ve said the whole off-season. This next season is likely an exercise in getting the kids in the MLB experience, and getting the prospects a year closer. The key to catching lightning in a bottle will be the young pitching exceeding normal rookie expectations to make up for the Miley and Gray loss, and for Senzel to stay healthy and produce at a level we think he’s capable of in order to make up a chunk of the lost Cast/Winker production.

Realigning and the owner making money are not mutually exclusive. Each can be true at the same time. In the long run, the team got younger, more athletic, and has much more to spend in future years than if they stayed the course they were on.

3. My expectation has been the same. The Reds FO, much like most other FO in sports will do the typical corporate talk BS when assessing the public about what they will spend on the team. It’s noise. What matters is the competency they display while spending that money. The Reds are generally honest about their overarching plans. The patience and competency to see them through is the main issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!

When did you call me a troll? What did I do that was trollish?

---

Not you. 1983.

Unclear on the quote. My bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

This team is a mortal lock to lose 90 games and isn't sneaking anywhere except off to Florida for a morning tee time in October.

And, again, if the goal is to build from within and develop the kids -- why are we letting Wade Miley walk out the door for nothing when keeping him to flip for a prospect was $2M? And why are we packaging in a bad salary with one of our most tradable assets and reducing our return haul?

This is the same turd salad that cheap ownership groups around the league serve to their fanbase: "Hey, if the kids all hit their upside projections, stay healthy, and we get a few good bounces, we can compete this year!"

---

It’s likely that it’s a turd salad. We’re aware of that. They are too. That’s why we aren’t seeing vets on long term deals. It’s a developmental year for the younger guys in most regards. We’ll see the payroll tick back up once the sinking and swimming is done with the prospects IMO. We’ve seen a big go for it just 2 seasons ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

We’ve seen a big go for it just 2 seasons ago.

---

In fact, as evidenced by LP's mutliple posts, we did not.

But continue to trot that narrative out there, man. We'll continue to knock it down.

I think what really upsets me as a fan is the organizations continued refusal to tear it down and rebuild in favor of trying to fix foundational mistakes with duct tape.

I just work too hard to pony up the kind of money youve got to for Opening Day for a team the FO has cobbled together in a half hearted attempt. If youre not going to put the money down to genuinely compete, why should I spend $4+/gal to fill my car up to drive up there from Lexington, deal with parking and those price ripoffs, $10-14 beers, and absurd costs of the tickets for OD.

Im cheap. Im the guy who waits until the Pirates and Marlins et al roll in to town and goes. No traffic, no lines, no hassle getting in and out.

Ill deal with all of that and pony up when weve got a conpetitive team and making a push. Im sure if yoh live in Cincinnati its easier to justify going more frequently.

Yeah, its only an hour or so from here to GABP but still, my time is money too and if theyre going to half ass this then how much do you think Im willing to spend, how far out of my way am I willing to go....when weve had 5 winning seasons and 0 playoff series wins in 16 yrs with this ownership group? Have some faith Phil? How about have some effing self awareness.

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.

- - - Updated - - -



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

---

Suarez got his WAR lowered because he was willing to play SS, even though that was a horrible idea.
Normally, WAR is a good rough estimate, but not in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Suarez got his WAR lowered because he was willing to play SS, even though that was a horrible idea.
Normally, WAR is a good rough estimate, but not in this case.

---

Not going to disagree with that. However, outside of the month that is held as the worst predictor of success, September, he couldn’t hit water if he fell out out the titanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

In fact, as evidenced by LP's mutliple posts, we did not.

But continue to trot that narrative out there, man. We'll continue to knock it down.

---

The largest FA spending in team history and trading for the 2020 Cy Young winner in 2019 and 2020 doesn’t count because they didn’t go above a certain percentage of their revenue?

Do you understand that after 2019 the Reds trimmed a significant amount off the payroll and spent that money on FA talent and more expensive talent acquired in trades? The current situation mirrors that via Leather Pants analysis—the one that you have been citing ad nauseam. The Reds are significantly under their usual payroll. For this year and the future. I’ll ask again, do you really think the Reds will roll into 2023 or 2024 with a $44M-$75M payroll when, in recent history they have spent that in triplicate at the low end and duplicate at the high end?

So knock down the assertion that the Reds new normal isnt a $44-$75M payroll for the foreseeable future. Knock down the narrative the Reds didn’t create savings and payflex to add vet FA to the kids after the sorting plays out. They literally did this as recently as 2019-2020. Hell honestly they’d did this much more nominally last week.

I never once argued that the Reds were going to go over their normal range of what they spend in terms of percentage of revenue. I argued that the Reds freed up and saved money that would go to the payroll in a large quantity in future years, and did so to a lesser extent this year. Leather Pants’s own research shows the Reds will have considerable money to spend in future years. So is his research good or not? Or do you want to dig your own grave to win an internet argument that you are a believer the new payroll norm is in the $44M-$75M range? Maybe use some common sense and say the Reds will spend the payflex to improve the club in the coming years as the kids solidify their roles….just like they did in 2019 and 2020. They got money off the books and then spent it on the team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

The largest FA spending in team history and trading for the 2020 Cy Young winner in 2019 and 2020 doesn’t count because they didn’t go above a certain percentage of their revenue?

---

Read LP's posts on this topic.

Plural.

He lays it out nicely.

The percentages matter a great deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

It’s likely that it’s a turd salad.

---

Except you’ve been arguing the very opposite for a couple of weeks. So which is it? Are they Tampa or Cincinnati?

In a week the season will have started.

No matter how much the Reds have ripped you off and sold your dreams down the river to Huckleberry Finn like villain's who will eat your liver while you are still alive and force you to sell plasma to get audio access to MLB LIVE so they can listen to Cubs and Cardinal games you will all still show up here at Redszone like junkies in a park in the dead of night.

And they say Baseball is dying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Except you’ve been arguing the very opposite for a couple of weeks. So which is it? Are they Tampa or Cincinnati?

---

That’s not what I argued. I said there’s a plausible situation where the team is good if things break the right way. IMO that takes the young pitchers shining, Senzel being healthy and the other guys to be around what they were last year. I argued that while that’s a plausible outcome, the probable outcome is a losing season. Young pitchers generally take lumps and Senzel hasn’t shown an ability to be healthy.

The answer is we don’t know. They’ve been impatient and mostly incompetent with plans starting with the failure to replace Ludwick in 2013. It seems that they are now willing to move assets that in years past they would have hung onto as fan favorites for dear life. It gives me a little bit of a thought that they are serious about attempting a Rays/As model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

Read LP's posts on this topic.

Plural.

He lays it out nicely.

The percentages matter a great deal.

---

His analysis of the percentages was good. But that’s not the money I was talking about….the money above the usual percentage range they normally spend. I was saying they’ve cleared money off the books that would go towards whatever percentage goes normally into the payroll in the coming years and to a lesser extent this year…they’ll spend that. They aren’t going to have some sort of ridiculous low payroll in the $44-$75M range unless they literally strike gold with every prospect on the team or in the system and can field a team of pre arbitration studs.

Phil, if it's not the first game of the season ... it's not "opening day."

no one cares about the "home opener" nearly as much as the real opening day.

now, in cincinnati, it should be one in the same. course, last time we opened on the road i think we won the world series. so i ain't mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

In regard to another post you made…fruits of the rebuild. I get how the trades didn’t work but you gotta be kidding if you don’t think the prospects didnt. They account for a good hunk of the starters and guys that will be up and coming.

As far as this years team, somethings will have to break right. IMO namely Senzel and the young pitching. If that goes well, it’s plausible they’ll be in the same neighborhood as last years club.

---

We did get some nice young players out the tanking, but not enough to justify 4-5 years of tanking.
Then they tried (kind of half assed) for two years, but were too cheap to get a bullpen, and made dumb moves like signing shogo.
Now because they made dumb moves, they have to do another teardown.
That's what I mean about the last rebuild failing. I dont' see this next rebuild working either, esp if Krall is running it.
But yes, I acknowledge the Reds have some good young talent, just not nearly enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

It boggles my mind that anyone would think any real quality free agent would ever sign here again after the way this clown show of an off-season has played out.

Seriously, why would any player even worth signing to begin with ever come here again knowing that if anything goes even slightly wrong in the next year, the Reds will just immediately freak out and blow the whole thing up?

It’s not gonna happen.

---

yep , I'm guessing Free Agents view Cincy as they do Pittsburg and Miami.
They know it's a losing organization, but if the money is right, some will sign. These are the guys that don't care if they get traded in a year or two.
And there's nothing wrong with that, my point is, no FA is going to come here thinking "I want to be part of the core that wins a world series in Cincy"
It will just be "well Cincy offered me 1 million more a year than the next highest bidder, so I will sign"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

Not going to disagree with that. However, outside of the month that is held as the worst predictor of success, September, he couldn’t hit water if he fell out out the titanic.

---

I agree that it's a coin flip whether Suarez has a good or bad year in 2022.. it could go either way.
I like the guy, I hope he does well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

Except you’ve been arguing the very opposite for a couple of weeks. So which is it? Are they Tampa or Cincinnati?

---

I’m not who this was directed at, just want to say: The Reds are trying to be Tampa, but they have an idiot running the show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!

I’m not who this was directed at, just want to say: The Reds are trying to be Tampa, but they have an idiot running the show.

---

And penurious ownership who refuse to spend what they've promised to spend for more than a decade now.

The way the Reds are set up currently, I think it'd be pretty easy to make some intelligent moves to turn them either into contenders this season or to set them up to contend for a couple of seasons. Were the Reds to actually spend the money they get from revenue sharing, they might be able to buy prospects by attaching older veterans on expensive contracts to them (similar to how the Reds have sold prospects in the past).

It'd be a fun thought experiment, IMO, to see what we could do with the Reds with a $200M payroll at this point in time.

Of course, none of this matter because, as you say, the GM is an idiot, and ownership is full of penurious buttheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

We did get some nice young players out the tanking, but not enough to justify 4-5 years of tanking.
Then they tried (kind of half assed) for two years, but were too cheap to get a bullpen, and made dumb moves like signing shogo.
Now because they made dumb moves, they have to do another teardown.
That's what I mean about the last rebuild failing. I dont' see this next rebuild working either, esp if Krall is running it.
But yes, I acknowledge the Reds have some good young talent, just not nearly enough.

---

I’ll buy that on the trades. Other than Castillo, we got squat to show. But as far as players/prospects we got Greene, Lodolo, Senzel, India, Stephenson, Santillian, Barero, Trammell (brought Bauer), Long (brought Gray and SanMartin)…I’m sure I could find more if I wasn’t going off the top of my head. Point being. We haven’t seen all the fruit of the tank for lack of a better term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I agree that it's a coin flip whether Suarez has a good or bad year in 2022.. it could go either way.
I like the guy, I hope he does well.

---

I wish him the best too. He seemed like a great dude. Prime example of why business decisions suck and can be difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee

And penurious ownership who refuse to spend what they've promised to spend for more than a decade now.

The way the Reds are set up currently, I think it'd be pretty easy to make some intelligent moves to turn them either into contenders this season or to set them up to contend for a couple of seasons. Were the Reds to actually spend the money they get from revenue sharing, they might be able to buy prospects by attaching older veterans on expensive contracts to them (similar to how the Reds have sold prospects in the past).

It'd be a fun thought experiment, IMO, to see what we could do with the Reds with a $200M payroll at this point in time.

Of course, none of this matter because, as you say, the GM is an idiot, and ownership is full of penurious buttheads.

---

::googles penurious::

Sure, but the Rays owners are even more penurious, the difference is they have a smart GM.

The Reds have bad ownership, not disagreeing, but you can put quality teams on the field with horrendous and cheap ownership. The Rays, Brewers, and A’s do it all the time.

Maybe reds ownership likes Krall because he doesn’t push back (this is likely), but either way the Reds don’t have a future while Krall is in charge. Been saying this since last year and I’m going to continue banging that drum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedTeamGo!

::googles penurious::

Sure, but the Rays owners are even more penurious, the difference is they have a smart GM.

The Reds have bad ownership, not disagreeing, but you can put quality teams on the field with horrendous and cheap ownership. The Rays, Brewers, and A’s do it all the time.

Maybe reds ownership likes Krall because he doesn’t push back (this is likely), but either way the Reds don’t have a future while Krall is in charge. Been saying this since last year and I’m going to continue banging that drum.

---

Agreed on all counts.

Krall is this generation's Wayne Krivsky-- binders full of AAAA guys who will almost assuredly be exposed by more playing time.

The only hope the Reds have of competing for anything more than the basement is if the pitchers all develop, Krall lucks into a couple of AAAA finds who develop into 120 wRC+ regulars, Votto continues to defy Father Time at a Hall of Fame/ All-Star rate, everyone remain relatively healthy, and the offensive prospects continue to improve.

That's about four too many "if onlys" for me.

I think the plan is for constant churn. Move Winker and Gray near their peaks. Suarez needed a change of scenery if he was ever going to do anything again. It’s just as well that Miley’s gone. Castellanos wasn’t coming back, in spite of his love for the city. Go with Joey Votto, a Moustakas-level veteran on a two-year contract, a good young core, and a bunch of Derek Dietrich - Colin Moran types to come in and see who sticks. At best you get a Schrock or Naquin. Rinse and repeat. Is that enough? It means the front office has little margin for error. They’re going to have to be right more often than some other teams.

I think the plan is to pocket tens of millions of dollars every season by signing Morons instead of Winkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Sheed

I think the plan is to pocket tens of millions of dollars every season by signing Morons instead of Winkers.

---

As ****ty as it is, they can do both, look at the Rays and A’s. Doesn’t make it right or agreeable, but it can be done. Krall sucks, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Sheed

I think the plan is to pocket tens of millions of dollars every season by signing Morons instead of Winkers.

---

I wish we had a better idea of what those pockets are. The Castellinis say the money goes back into the team. But I wonder if the owners have management contracts, so that “back into the team” includes expenses paid to the Castellinis and other owners. It would be like Hollywood accounting. The blockbuster didn’t make any money … after the producers paid themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

I wish we had a better idea of what those pockets are. The Castellinis say the money goes back into the team. But I wonder if the owners have management contracts, so that “back into the team” includes expenses paid to the Castellinis and other owners. It would be like Hollywood accounting. The blockbuster didn’t make any money … after the producers paid themselves.

---

No need for creative accounting if you never have to show your accounting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Sheed

No need for creative accounting if you never have to show your accounting.

---

Bingo. And that’s why it’s my opinion that 99% of what they have to say about spending or finances is just noise and might as well be Charlie Brown’s mom speaking. It means nothing. Whether they are doing creative accounting so they technically aren’t lying or they’re lying and are pocketing all, it is immaterial because regardless of either situation only a certain dollar amount will be going to the MLB club. I’m more interested in honesty and competency in the money they are actually going to spend and traditionally have. Not the extra money we think they should spend. Competent FOs get much more out of lower dollar amounts than the Reds do. I see the Reds as being an ideal location to do a mostly As and Rays type build because, unlike those 2 franchises, the Reds have in recent memory, spent significantly more and could keep real core blocks around and/or bring an over the top piece in while cycling the rest of the roster As/Rays style.

I'm tired of using the Ray's or A's as the model the Reds front office should be emulating.