What will it take for Reds fans to forgive the Castellinis?

[RedsManRick]

MLB has to do something about the payroll discrepancy. They can't have a $300mill difference between #1 and #32. That's nuts and not seen in any other sport. That doesn't mean the Mets will win it all and the A's will come in last but it's just not right on so many levels, including competitive balance

GAC put it nicely when he said something to the effect of "it's nice to build through your farm system but the rich teams are doing that too." You're still at a huge disadvantage

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

We should be clear that "MLB" refers to the 30 ownership groups as a collective. It is entirely within their power to fix the problem; further redistribute league revenue and create payroll floors such that every team has to have a competitive payroll. I'm pretty sure this would not require MLBPA approval.

But rich people don't get rich by thinking about the collective welfare over own. They get rich by using other people's money to make capital investments that drive growth while ensuring the operating costs that come out of their own pocket stay under control.

So the rich ones won't further subsidize the "poor" ones and the "poor" ones won't spend themselves into an operating deficit (or, in a few cases, risk getting close). The much more palatable solution is use their collective bargaining power to artificially cap their costs. But labor isn't cooperating, so the owners are stuck.

I swear, one of the biggest insights I've gotten in the past few years was from Ezra Klein's book on political polarization: The easiest way to bring lasting peace between two competing parties for them to find a 3rd party to exploit together so they both can "win".

This situation is squarely on Manfred.

[Ron Madden]

I just don't understand people who root for the owners bank account, it seems to me like they may be envious of players salaries.

Going as far as saying players should have to take jobs during the off-season in order to earn a living. I just don't get it.

[Bourgeois Zee]

The Reds have spent money on players though, and every time they do, the players never preform. What did all those 2020 signing players produce, nothing. What did all those players signed in 2010-2013 produce, nothing.

So why would ownership keep spending money, to just spend money, when there is nothing produced from spending the money?

This is untrue.

Also, if you're not playing to win, you need to sell the team.

Otherwise, why be in the game at all?

[Kingspoint]

I have disagreed and continue to disagree with how this front office has handled things but I'm going to put that aside for now:

How this front office supplements the graduating prospects is going to be the defining thing for me

- does this team have a core at any point locked into LTCs? Or is it going to be ruthless roster churning?
- will they get legit veteran pitching around the young starters? Or is it the duct tape and bubble gum guys in the spots not occupied by homegrown starters?
- will they look to acquire upper echelon MLB talent via trade and free agency? Or do they just keep cycling through the Pham/Myers types on 1 year deals and only trade MLB talent for prospects?
- where does payroll ultimately settle? Are they going all in on a $60-80M payroll and pushing it to $100M when they "see a window"? Or do they pick a number and annually try and field the best team they can at that number?
- once they have determined they have $ to spend, will they be able to resist the temptation of overpaying for a big name, past prime, non-elite player?

When they get serious, will they assume that there will be injuries and account for that, or use that as an excuse why they couldn't achieve their goals?

[Kingspoint]

I still say that the answer lies in Tiered Divisions like English Soccer. If you suck all the time, then you shouldn't get to play with the big boys, you shouldn't get to share in the revenue, and you get to be embarrassed by eating at the kids' table year after year. Prove yourself in a lower division to rise to the next division. Lose the rights to play in a higher division if you suck and drop to a lower division. The schedules can be worked out. I've done it before here, twice over the last 30 years (because this problem is never going away).

[GAC]

I would consider St Louis mid-market. Marlins small. Anaheim, Houston, Chicago large

That's how I saw it too; but I also looked at their yearly team payrolls as an indicator, to get one somewhere in the ballpark.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-res...kdowns/payroll

[Bourgeois Zee]

That's how I saw it too; but I also looked at their yearly team payrolls as an indicator, to get one somewhere in the ballpark.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-res...kdowns/payroll

The problem with looking at their payrolls is that payroll is entirely on ownership. It totally makes sense that teams who spend more money on better players will end up winning more World Series. That's not on baseball as a whole, but on the individual owners.

For example, Miami is among the largest cities in America. It's got a fantastic base of massive baseball fans and lots of retirees willing to spend money to go to games. But ownership there has been a mess since they bought into the league. Beyond ownership sucking, there's no reason they should be a small market.

Tampa is in a similar spot. Tons and tons of people with lots of money to spend and free time as well. But that ownership has chosen to keep most of the money given to them instead of investing it in their team.

San Diego is a giant of a city. How are they considered small market? Houston was, at one point, considered a small market; now, they're not.

St. Louis is among the smallest markets, yet they spend relatively heavily. They're nearly always considered mid-market, and no one can give me a good reason why.

Market size seems to be nebulous enough that it can mean nearly anything you want it to, but it all really comes down to the fact that MLB owners are largely given free passes to do whatever they want with the money they're given by other owners. They can then cry foul, whine about small markets, moan about how everything is stacked against them as they cash those welfare checks.

Is there competitive imbalance? Sure. A little. I guess. (Though that could be fixed through owners working together for the betterment of the game. They just choose not to.)

[Wonderful Monds]

When you look at how rich every owner is and where team payrolls informally max out, there’s no reason any given team couldn’t be a top 10 spender if they wanted to in the current environment. Probably closer to top 5.

[Kingspoint]

Pick your business-chain. Franchises don't get shared revenue from other franchises. If they don't do well with the local public, they fold.

It's time for the REDS' fans to stop supporting the rest of the league.

All Sports leagues need to go by the same legal rules of all businesses. There should not be any more separate rules legally for sports leagues. Books would end up getting looked at by the public, too, this way, as they would have to sell stock to survive, or be public trusts of a municipality. Truth would be revealed if it was stock-driven, not necessarily if it was publicly-funded driven.

There just seems to be a need for more legality in the process. It seems fans should be able to sue in a class-action suit.

- - - Updated - - -

When you look at how rich every owner is and where team payrolls informally max out, there’s no reason any given team couldn’t be a top 10 spender if they wanted to in the current environment. Probably closer to top 5.

Arthur Anderson knows where the money goes, but nobody else does.

[Bob Sheed]

Small Market does not equal Small Payroll.

Small Market is a "nice word" for Milking the Franchise.

[wlf WV]

Small Market does not equal Small Payroll.

Small Market is a "nice word" for Milking the Franchise.

You say it enough that it becomes true , irregardless . It's like supply side economics aka trickle down economics has been a byword so long it's taken for granted as fact.

[GAC]

Small Market does not equal Small Payroll.

Small Market is a "nice word" for Milking the Franchise.

I'm not quite sure what it means Bob (lol). But are some then saying - since all baseball owners are rich - that the Reds are capable of carrying a yearly payroll matching the Mets (336M), Yankees (267M), Phillies (223M), or Dodgers (212M)?

They, and so many other organizations that are struggling to compete, are just being cheap?

Don't take this as a defense of the Red's ownership, and their behavior; but I'm trying to look at the bigger picture going on in MLB. It's obvious (imo) that payroll is a determining factor in being able to compete and win when you look at the top 10 teams in payroll.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

I'm not saying that market-size necessarily determines payroll; but wouldn't greater attendance coincide with market-size? Teams that have attendance of 2-3M year are going to bring in greater revenue then teams bringing in half that? And don't the larger market teams also seem to get broadcast deals, or have their own network within their market, that brings them in massive revenue? How else are those above teams able to carry such large yearly payrolls?

[Ron Madden]

And the "small market clubs" get millions of dollars revenue sharing welfare checks from those larger markets every year that they refuse to spend

[LeatherPants]

I'm not quite sure what it means Bob (lol). But are some then saying - since all baseball owners are rich - that the Reds are capable of carrying a yearly payroll matching the Mets (336M), Yankees (267M), Phillies (223M), or Dodgers (212M)?

They, and so many other organizations that are struggling to compete, are just being cheap?

Don't take this as a defense of the Red's ownership, and their behavior; but I'm trying to look at the bigger picture going on in MLB. It's obvious (imo) that payroll is a determining factor in being able to compete and win when you look at the top 10 teams in payroll.

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

I'm not saying that market-size necessarily determines payroll; but wouldn't greater attendance coincide with market-size? Teams that have attendance of 2-3M year are going to bring in greater revenue then teams bringing in half that? And don't the larger market teams also seem to get broadcast deals, or have their own network within their market, that brings them in massive revenue? How else are those above teams able to carry such large yearly payrolls?

In all this you forgot to mention revenue sharing.

[MikeS21]

I disagree with this because if you use this definition the Reds are a mid to large market because the amount of eyeballs that can get a Reds game is very large. Because you have tons of people in Indiana/Ohio/Kentucky/West Virgina that can get the Reds.

Actually, the population of metro complexes like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc., have many more “tons” of people. The four states you mentioned are divided in loyalties. Ohio draws both Reds and Guardian fans. Indiana draws Reds, Cubs, White Sox, and Cardinals fans. I know diehard Nats fans in eastern WV, and diehard Braves fans in southern KY, and Cardinals fans in western KY. Years ago in the 70’s you would have been 100% correct in that all four states were predominantly Reds country. But now the markets have drastically changed.

It’s all about advertising income. Broadcasters in the biggest cities will get more income from advertising than will the smaller cities of the midwest. The difference between the two are pretty big. A 30 second Super Bowl commercial will cost an advertiser much more than what Gold Star pays the Reds for a 30 second commercial. Now, the Yankees and Dodgers aren’t quite getting Super Bowl advertising income, but they are getting much more than what the Reds are getting from Gold Star and Jeff Wyler and JTM and UDF commercials.

If the Reds suddenly jacked their payroll up to $200 million, they would still be outbid for the impact players who could actually help the Reds win a World Series. The same teams are still going to get the best players because they have more money from local advertising. So you end up forcing the Reds to pay big money to so-so players who really aren’t going to help move the needle very much, if at all. The only way to prevent that is to have a firm payroll ceiling in place. It’s great to force teams to have a payroll floor, but all it does is raise the ceiling for other teams, and the Reds are no closer to winning the World Series.