Tanking Might Not Be So Bad After all.

[mth123]

Collusion I, II and III were worse than steroids. At least the PED users were trying to get the maximum out of their ability.

Completely agree.

[Krusty]

I haven’t heard a small market owner say yet they are losing money. And, unless they show the financial books we can speculate all we want. Problem with the Reds, they held onto players too long during the first rebuild and didn’t maximize the return in prospects. Then they went on a spending spree and signed players that were bad fits. Then Covid hit the following season and like all MLB teams they lost revenue. Now ownership reverse course and started the fire sale in 2020 to try to recoup those losses. Now we are in the second rebuild.

Has ownership learned it’s lesson and let the baseball people run the show and stay on course with a plan? Can ownership not meddle and offer bad deals like the did before? You would think they learned their lesson with the Ken Griffey, Jr. contract that extending Bailey, Suarez and Votto were not in the best interests of the club? Will the financial resources be there to lock up some of these prospects early in their careers like the Atlanta Braves did with Acuna, Olbies, Harris and Striker? Time will tell but I would rather see the Reds not blow money (see Mike Minor) just to appease the fan base when there is no chance of winning.

[Bourgeois Zee]

The Reds can absolutely afford bad deals. They choose not to afford any deals.

This is a choice.

[UPRedsFan]

The Reds can absolutely afford bad deals. They choose not to afford any deals.

This is a choice.

I'd feel better about the neglect of the free agent market if they followed the Braves model and announced extensions for some of India, Stephenson, Greene, and Lodolo.

[Bourgeois Zee]

I'd feel better about the neglect of the free agent market if they followed the Braves model and announced extensions for some of India, Stephenson, Greene, and Lodolo.

I wouldn't at this point.

The Reds need to acquire talent. They don't have a pipeline (as of yet) or prospects enough to compete.

First, talent. Then LTCs.

[Chip R]

I'd feel better about the neglect of the free agent market if they followed the Braves model and announced extensions for some of India, Stephenson, Greene, and Lodolo.

It would be nice but, IIRC, the Braves players actually had a little longer period of success than those four have had. Three years ago, there were probably people who wanted the Reds to sign Senzel to an extension. We saw what happened when they signed Homer to one. After they signed Suarez to one he tanked. India had injury issues last year and didn't put up the numbers he did in his rookie year. Stephenson would be the one I'd sign but, much like Senzel, he's had problems staying on the field. Greene and Lodolo have showed promise but they are still very young. It may be prudence that they haven't been signed rather than cheapness.

[REDREAD]

I'd feel better about the neglect of the free agent market if they followed the Braves model and announced extensions for some of India, Stephenson, Greene, and Lodolo.

Those 4 guys probably can't wait until arbitration makes them too pricey and they can be traded off this Mickey Mouse team.
If they were offered an extension, they'd be low balled.. This is a team that now claims they can't afford anyone.. why would any kid with ability sign here long term, especially at a discount?

[KronoRed]

The Reds can absolutely afford bad deals. They choose not to afford any deals.

This is a choice.

and then when other teams long term deals go bad we're supposed to pat the Reds on the back for being cheap.

No thanks.

[redsfan9988]

Those 4 guys probably can't wait until arbitration makes them too pricey and they can be traded off this Mickey Mouse team.
If they were offered an extension, they'd be low balled.. This is a team that now claims they can't afford anyone.. why would any kid with ability sign here long term, especially at a discount?

That has to be the message being received by guys like India, Greene, and Stephenson, right? Even if we give you fair market value for an extension, we’re not going to outbid the field for you. And we’re never going to supplement the roster with quality free agents. There’s absolutely no incentive whatsoever not to test the market.

[LeatherPants]

Those 4 guys probably can't wait until arbitration makes them too pricey and they can be traded off this Mickey Mouse team.
If they were offered an extension, they'd be low balled.. This is a team that now claims they can't afford anyone.. why would any kid with ability sign here long term, especially at a discount?

Everyone can believe me or not, but I have a source that says India was offered a LTC and he passed. I don’t have any of the specifics (years/dollars).

[Kc61]

Tanking can be an effective tool to clear the roster/payroll for spending and contending.

But it’s often abused. Long periods of tanking are long respites from spending on payroll with the excuse of rebuilding.

Baseball sees this - note the draft lottery system that limits non-spending bad teams to two years in the lottery. But it’s not enough, there need to be other measures to avoid extended or repeating tear down rebuilds.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Everyone can believe me or not, but I have a source that says India was offered a LTC and he passed. I don’t have any of the specifics (years/dollars).

It's logical, at the very least. IIRC, he switched to Boras after his ROY. That's usually an indicator you plan to go to free agency

[boxseat]

After tanking year after year because they are cheap, you would think they would have a huge war chest to go sign the best players.

[Krusty]

The CBA negotiations the proposal was a 100 million salary floor but owners wanted to lower the luxury tax threshold, which the players association didn’t agree. Don’t understand why the owners wanted to lower the ceiling in exchange for a salary floor. You want to increase spending on one end but you want to restrict it on the other end. The problem isn’t the players association but the owners.

[Kc61]

The CBA negotiations the proposal was a 100 million salary floor but owners wanted to lower the luxury tax threshold, which the players association didn’t agree. Don’t understand why the owners wanted to lower the ceiling in exchange for a salary floor. You want to increase spending on one end but you want to restrict it on the other end. The problem isn’t the players association but the owners.

The argument is the following: If you want me to compete for $100 million players, keep it at $100 million. If you impose a floor, it doesn’t help me (or competitive balance) if that same player is now $150 million due to an unlimited top end.

A floor does no good if the big guys can respond by inflating the salary scale even more.