2024-2025 Reds Off-season General Discussion

[Kc61]

You can’t successfully argue for the Martinez QO unless you address the budgetary issue. Nobody would object to re-upping with Nick in a vacuum. Most would spend the $21 million. But it may leave the Reds tapped out this off-season given the reduction in TV revenue.

So Reds might be choosing Martinez over outfield spending. And outfield doesn’t have the depth of Greene, Lodolo, Abbott, Lowder, with Burns, Petty, Acuna and others in the high minors. Many, including Krall, highlighted the outfield as being in serious need of reinforcement this off-season.

That’s the issue, not whether Martinez is a good pitcher, of course he is, but how this team becomes a contender spending so much of its off-season kitty on one pitcher.

[redsfandan]

Martinez had 4 WAR in 2024. He only had 2.7 WAR over the previous two years combined. And he's averaged less than 120 innings over the last 3 years.

[JCM11]

You can’t successfully argue for the Martinez QO unless you address the budgetary issue. Nobody would object to re-upping with Nick in a vacuum. Most would spend the $21 million. But it may leave the Reds tapped out this off-season given the reduction in TV revenue.

So Reds might be choosing Martinez over outfield spending. And outfield doesn’t have the depth of Greene, Lodolo, Abbott, Lowder, with Burns, Petty, Acuna and others in the high minors. Many, including Krall, highlighted the outfield as being in serious need of reinforcement this off-season.

That’s the issue, not whether Martinez is a good pitcher, of course he is, but how this team becomes a contender spending so much of its off-season kitty on one pitcher.

They certainly aren't going to be a contender if they don't adequately replace the 350 innings Montas, Martinez, Farmer, and Junis gave them at a 3.58 ERA. That's going to require some $ being spent, and not just hoping a bunch of 21 and 22 year olds get the job done. Sure one or two of them could help(Lowder likely will) but that's a lot to expect.

[RedRow]

Martinez had 4 WAR in 2024. He only had 2.7 WAR over the previous two years combined. And he's averaged less than 120 innings over the last 3 years.

He seems like a lucky, Good/Good-Average-ish pitcher that had a flukey very solid year.

Jimmy Haynes had a 3 WAR season w the reds, then ended his 9 year career with basically exactly a 3 WAR.

20M on Nick Martinez - for this team - is idiotic

[mth123]

They certainly aren't going to be a contender if they don't adequately replace the 350 innings Montas, Martinez, Farmer, and Junis gave them at a 3.58 ERA. That's going to require some $ being spent, and not just hoping a bunch of 21 and 22 year olds get the job done. Sure one or two of them could help(Lowder likely will) but that's a lot to expect.

Exactly. A rotation of Greene, the injury waiting to happen Lodolo, the HR waiting to happen Abbott and the Rookie who made 6 starts with a wide open black hole in the other spot isn't going to cut it. I can squint real hard and see an adequate OF with Steer, Friedl and Fraley (though I think they need a big upgrade). I can't squint and see an adequate rotation without a significant investment in a starter. I guess it depends on how people view Abbott and Lodolo. I'm skeptical of Abbott being able to outpitch his peripherals again and I have serious doubts that Lodolo will make 20 starts, so I think the rotation need is fairly urgent.

[Boss-Hog]

I smell Bresser

Good call

[Kc61]

Reds’ position player fWAR was 25th in MLB last season. Reds’ pitching was 7th in fWAR in MLB. Yet RedsZone has decided now that adding pitching is the priority for 2025 and folks are willing to see Reds spend most of its open payroll on one pitcher.

I find this argument unpersuasive. This team’s main need is a centerpiece hitter. That player probably would be one of at least two new outfielders. And with Marte probably in the minors, they probably need infield support too along with a backup catcher, and some hitting depth.

Having virtually no money to spend on these position player needs would be a serious mistake.

[Kingspoint]

Is it wrong to have expected at least some rumors involving the REDS going after someone by now?

Clearly, they are waiting until Nov. 18th to see what their "new" budget will be.

5 more days.

Tick Tock.

Tick Tock.

[backbencher]

Basically he said (and I’m no economist so I apologize for anything I got wrong) that the Reds in the Castellini era tend to spend about 60% of revenue on payroll and 80% when they’re “going for it”. That would translate in 2025 to a payroll between 160 and 180 million bucks. On the other hand, he noted that private equity funds are now allowed to buy minority shares in clubs. This has not happened in Cincinnati, but if it did, the rate of return an equity fund would expect would lead to a budget of around 100 million. Also, the Reds have a big advantage in that they’re not paying any significant amount for either the stadium or the Goodyear complex.

Again, IÂ’m an idiot in these matters, so IÂ’d encourage you to listen for yourself.

Thanks for linking and summarizing. Good podcast, really appreciate someone presenting a professional financial view. Lots of good info and great thoughts in there. Guy did his homework looking at the CBA, the Braves financials, league data. Good info on stadium expenses and on "secondary" markets.

Also some errors, arising I think from missing some sanity checks.

1. The demise of Diamond may be good for local fans who will be able to get a local streaming option. No chance that it is revenue-positive. If the Reds (or any other Diamond team) had a revenue-positive option earlier, they would have taken it earlier. And surely other teams would not have seized the 20-25% reductions that have come with the re-upped Diamond deals.

2. Applying ratios does not work because the non-payroll ratios do not scale the same way. GM salaries, travel, uniforms, broadcasters, what have you - they will cost more in New York than in Cincinnati, but not by much. Non-payroll expenses are constant per team. An example: every team pays the same $17 million in player benefits, regardless of revenue or payroll.

3. Applying the Braves ratio does not work without understanding how the Braves allocate SG&A and the like between different parts of the organization. It's not that the financials are private (they're not), it's that there is no way to compare the allocation to other organizations. MLBPA no doubt does some checking, but it's never going to be perfect.

4. I'm not sure how he concludes that the Cincinnati market opportunity is equivalent to St. Louis and Cincinnati, but it's just not. Not in DMA ratings, not in CBA market scores, not anywhere. Cincinnati is competing with Milwaukee as the smallest market in MLB. His point about "larger secondary market" is pretty interesting, though. It's a point made by others on this site from time to time.

5. Professional leagues in the US generally put approximately 50% of revenues to player expenses. 60 or so (the high-end number he pegs for the Reds) is far outside the norm. Also - that 50% includes all players expense, such as pensions - not just player payroll.

6. The conclusion of "$160 million" is so wildly out of the norm not just for the Reds but for other small market teams that it really calls for further sanity checks. Disappointing that he did not notice that.

7. He calls out that the Reds went into covid with their highest-ever payroll but does not address the possibility of carry-forward losses. I don't know whether the Reds had them or not, but a lot of businesses did.

At any rate, looking at the Reds history and other similar teams, $125 million (basically the 2019 payroll) seems doable.

[JCM11]

Reds’ position player fWAR was 25th in MLB last season. Reds’ pitching was 7th in fWAR in MLB. Yet RedsZone has decided now that adding pitching is the priority for 2025 and folks are willing to see Reds spend most of its open payroll on one pitcher.

I find this argument unpersuasive. This team’s main need is a centerpiece hitter. That player probably would be one of at least two new outfielders. And with Marte probably in the minors, they probably need infield support too along with a backup catcher, and some hitting depth.

Having virtually no money to spend on these position player needs would be a serious mistake.

Now take out Montas, Martinez, Junis, and Farmer and add up the pitching fWAR. Going into the year with Greene, Lodolo, Abbott, Lowder, and Ashcraft as the rotation with a bunch of 22 year olds with no MLB experience as the backups will lead to a lost season. Not to mention having a closer who walks nearly a many hitters as he strikes out.

[Kc61]

Now take out Montas, Martinez, Junis, and Farmer and add up the pitching fWAR. Going into the year with Greene, Lodolo, Abbott, Lowder, and Ashcraft as the rotation with a bunch of 22 year olds with no MLB experience as the backups will lead to a lost season. Not to mention having a closer who walks nearly a many hitters as he strikes out.

This only proves my point. The position side of the equation is not mentioned. It’s as if RedsZone, enthralled with Martinez, has no memory of the miserable season had by most position guys.

And I’m not particularly moved by the absence of Montas, Farmer, or Junis (who came to Reds when season was effectively over). Eminently replaceable. Nick Martinez would be a loss - but the offense had a wRC+ of 87. That’s 87 with league average 100.

[Bourgeois Zee]

6. The conclusion of "$160 million" is so wildly out of the norm not just for the Reds but for other small market teams that it really calls for further sanity checks. Disappointing that he did not notice that.

It may be out of the norm, but that's what the numbers suggest, according to the guy. Were he to delve into that particular conclusion, it'd likely be, "Ownership sucks. They're cheap and trying to pull a fast one on a largely gullible public. Don't trust them at all. This is a pervasive issue across baseball, particiularly among a certain segment of owners. They're likely colluding to keep salaries low so they can make more."

[LiferJim]

I think paying Martinez 1/5 of our total salary could be a problem. Yes he had a fantastic season, but is it repeatable? My guess is no, but I have been wrong many other times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MoneyInTheBank]

Now take out Montas, Martinez, Junis, and Farmer and add up the pitching fWAR. Going into the year with Greene, Lodolo, Abbott, Lowder, and Ashcraft as the rotation with a bunch of 22 year olds with no MLB experience as the backups will lead to a lost season. Not to mention having a closer who walks nearly a many hitters as he strikes out.

Even if Martinez walks, I don't think that will be the extent of the rotation. I think they'll look heavily into that Buehler/Bieber/Montas/Lorenzen group. I think they would also add, at least, one guy who didn't pitch in 2024 (Syndergaard/DeSclafani) or a KBO/Indy sensation. I could also see them targeting a potential swingman like Junis/Hoffman/Flexen.

Having both Aguilar and Williamson go down was killer for the depth but it will take a significant investment (probably more than they have available) to fix it from the top down

[JCM11]

I think paying Martinez 1/5 of our total salary could be a problem. Yes he had a fantastic season, but is it repeatable? My guess is no, but I have been wrong many other times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If payroll stays at the 100 million level they aren't going to be able to fill all the team needs in FA anyway. They will have to decide on a good SP, a good bat, or lesser versions of both. Krall will need to trade for a cost controlled SP or OF if they don't up payroll.