Non-tender situation and moves for 2020-21

[Kinsm]

"Extraneous" expenses???

No way they had profit 2020 after covering their remaining fixed costs.

Prove it. Show me that the money they made from their TV deals didn't cover all of their costs in 2020.

[757690]

According for Forbes, and this is a lot of them making their best estimates, here is the Reds financial situation:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/cincinn...h=ab9279d3003c

Revenue: $276M
Player expenses: $148M
Gate Receipts: $45M

If this is accurate, the Reds are receiving $231M in additional revenue besides their gate receipts. I think it’s highly unlikely that their operating costs besides payroll are more than $231M.

[Kc61]

According for Forbes, and this is a lot of them making their best estimates, here is the Reds financial situation:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/cincinn...h=ab9279d3003c

Revenue: $276M
Player expenses: $148M
Gate Receipts: $45M

If this is accurate, the Reds are receiving $231M in additional revenue besides their gate receipts. I think it’s highly unlikely that their operating costs besides payroll are more than $231M.

Forbes chart says figures are 2019 revenue and operating income, leading to April 2020 valuation. Obviously, Reds didn’t have $45 million in gate receipts in 2020.

[757690]

Seems to be discussing 2019.

It says 2020

Attachment 16782

[Kc61]

It says 2020

Please read the whole page, including the part you cut off (and footnotes). The valuation is April 2020 but “revenue and operating income are for 2019 season and net of revenue sharing and stadium debt service.”

Having played for only a few months, the revenue total is obviously not an actual 2020 number. $45 million of gate receipts would be impossible for 2020 since Reds played without fans in the stands. Reds could not have spent $148 million in salaries last year as salaries were pro rated. And so on.

[paulrichjr]

The Braves are unique in that they do report because they are owned by a public company.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tomahaw...ta-braves/amp/

Cash used by operating activities: down $63 million to $1 million (comparing the4 last 6 months, year-over-year)
Cash used by investing activities: better by $16 million, but still under water by $39m.
Cash used by financing activities: $185 million higher… similar to our discussion above
In other words, it’s quite possible that they’ve got cash available simply because they’re running on credit right now.

Bottom line: in 2019, this quarter netted the Atlanta Braves $36 million. This year, it’s a loss of $30 million.

[CaiGuy]

According for Forbes, and this is a lot of them making their best estimates, here is the Reds financial situation:

https://www.forbes.com/teams/cincinn...h=ab9279d3003c

Revenue: $276M
Player expenses: $148M
Gate Receipts: $45M

If this is accurate, the Reds are receiving $231M in additional revenue besides their gate receipts. I think it’s highly unlikely that their operating costs besides payroll are more than $231M.

Right, so if this estimate is accurate, and they were projecting ~$276M in revenue for 2020, and the other estimate is correct in that they lost ~$100M in revenue, they may have taken in around $176M in revenue for 2020. These are estimates of course, it could be more or less.

A 40% year-over-year drop in revenue is like a good knee-capping for a business. I know because I am also seeing that first hand. You cut cost everywhere you can, and even let people you really want to stay go. Because there is no work for them to do and no ROI to keeping them. You do this to survive to die another day.

I agree that they didn't loose all of that money. Unfortunately, they shifted most of that loss to the players and other staff. I am sure they cut some costs elsewhere. But many costs of running a business are fixed and have to be maintained, especially when things happen suddenly.. They still signed draftees, maintained facilities, made debt payments, ect. They had the costs of the 60-game schedule, the two shortened spring trainings, and so on. They certainly suffered some losses, though not "$100M" of course. If someone is writing about this subject, they should understand the difference between basic terms like losses, revenue, profit, ect. They have very different meanings.

Looking forward to 2021, they well know that they aren't going to recover to 2019 levels of revenue. For many businesses and fields, such as mine, that may take many years. So they are budgeting for the next season with that in mind.

[corkedbat]

Was Bradley's contract really gonna be that onerous? Team needs all the bullpen options they can bring to camp.

[Kc61]

Was Bradley's contract really gonna be that onerous? Team needs all the bullpen options they can bring to camp.

I’m sure Reds don’t view it as a stand alone.

They shed about $30 million in free agency and about $10 million in non-tenders. They probably had a goal of $X as a baseline budget from which to now work on trades and reasonable FA contracts.

Again, the wisdom depends on the outcome. So far, we’ve only seen the subtractions. Hard to judge.

They do have Antone, Sims, Garrett as good young relievers to backup Iggy. Maybe Lorenzen if he doesn’t start. Bradley is paid according to his arbitration status, Reds maybe can find more live relief arms who are pre-arb.

[Coopdaddy67]

The difference is that Bradley is a known commodity. Considering the Reds have had bullpen issues in their recent history, it doesn't make much sense to let those kind of guys go when they're still under team control.

Odds are that the bullpen is going to be a problem in 6 months and they'll be right back to where they started, minus a decent OF prospect and an AAAA player that may or may not still breakthrough.

If they plan on spending a few million on an RP (or two) they think they can "fix" to save a few million, consider me unimpressed.

Given the expected rotation overhaul, it's safe to say the bullpen is going to be counted on a little bit more often without a Cy Young winning innings eater around.

[REDREAD]

Guys like Naughton and Fairchild aren't top tier prospects, but that doesn't mean they're not valuable add-on pieces. Instead of adding those guys to a top tier prospect or two to bring back young, controllable talent, the Reds are now left with nothing. Unfortunately, using those 5-30 ranked organization prospects ineffectively has been an ongoing theme.

My biggest problem continues to be that a big selling point for the Reds post-trade was that these guys weren't rentals. Okay, so it's safe to say you were willing to give up more for them because you viewed them as controllable assets. The market and financial implications of the pandemic have not changed since August 31st, so I really don't want to see that used as an excuse. This entire situation just screams poor management to me. It's almost like they don't have a plan...

Dick Williams probably planned to keep Archie and Goodwin in 2021, but he's not here anymore.
I am not very optimistic about next year, but rather than starting that debate again, I will just say that I hope they use the
savings to improve the club.
Cutting Archie is distressing though (unless he had some underlying injury problem).
I am not convinced he will be replaced with someone of comparable talent, but let's wait and see.

[M2]

Dick Williams probably planned to keep Archie and Goodwin in 2021, but he's not here anymore.

I sincerely doubt that. Thou shalt not spend thy nest egg.

[REDREAD]

I sincerely doubt that. Thou shalt not spend thy nest egg.

I was one of Dick Williams biggest critics, but I honestly think he wanted to win, he just didn't have the skills to build a team.
He perceived value in Goodwin and Archie and bragged about how they would be here in 2021. I think he planned on keeping them in 2021.. Although if he was ordered to cut them loose from ownership, of course, he would have no choice but to comply.
If it was up to him? They would still be here.
Dick W seemed to have no problems spending money on payroll, I think he would have rather achieved the fame of winning a World Series as a GM rather than a slightly larger inheritance.. The guy obviously never has to worry about money the rest of his life..

It's possible the Reds planned on cutting costs this winter, Dick Williams found out and that factored into his decision to resign.
It would be extremely frustrating to preside over all those years of tanking and then only have one year to really try to win,
and then have ownership order a teardown. (Note, I have no proof, just saying if Dick W saw a payroll cut coming, that probably
factored into his decision to leave, if it was really his decision).. Of course, it's possible the owners were disappointed at having
a high payroll and a mediocre team and force Dick W out.. I don't know.. but I'm guessing he's probably glad he's not the GM anymore.

[757690]

I was one of Dick Williams biggest critics, but I honestly think he wanted to win, he just didn't have the skills to build a team.
He perceived value in Goodwin and Archie and bragged about how they would be here in 2021. I think he planned on keeping them in 2021.. Although if he was ordered to cut them loose from ownership, of course, he would have no choice but to comply.
If it was up to him? They would still be here.
Dick W seemed to have no problems spending money on payroll, I think he would have rather achieved the fame of winning a World Series as a GM rather than a slightly larger inheritance.. The guy obviously never has to worry about money the rest of his life..

It's possible the Reds planned on cutting costs this winter, Dick Williams found out and that factored into his decision to resign.
It would be extremely frustrating to preside over all those years of tanking and then only have one year to really try to win,
and then have ownership order a teardown. (Note, I have no proof, just saying if Dick W saw a payroll cut coming, that probably
factored into his decision to leave, if it was really his decision).. Of course, it's possible the owners were disappointed at having
a high payroll and a mediocre team and force Dick W out.. I don't know.. but I'm guessing he's probably glad he's not the GM anymore.

This doesn’t make much sense with Krall, who likely was the one behind the deadline deals, taking over for Williams.

[REDREAD]

This doesn’t make much sense with Krall, who likely was the one behind the deadline deals, taking over for Williams.

Well, I am assuming Dick Williams was the one with authority at that point, not Krall.
OF course, no one knows for sure.
I don't think Dick Williams would have bragged about the extra years of control if he didn't intend on bringing them back.

I really don't like arguments about which front office guy was responsible for what trades, just because they drag out forever
and there's no way to prove either way. If you believe Krall was the guy that was running the club at the deadline, and Dick W was just shooting from the hip when he bragged about the extra years of control... well, that's not something that's debatable.
I respect your opinion, but that's a different assumption than what I made the post under.