And that was a problem the Reds have addressed a bit in this trade window. Trying to get the payroll down a bit and get younger cheaper and potentially really good players. The over spending caught up to them the past 2 years. That's why this had to happen.

 

Not that hard to understand[/quote

Reds had basically about a three year window. I get it. My point is your window analogy just doesn't seem to apply to the Cards. So, how do the Cards spend less money than the Reds, but continue to own them ?

 

They actually spend more... but anyway they have drafted better than the Reds in the past 6-7 years. They are going to have issues as well when contracts for guys like Wacha, Carpenter, and Wong come up.

 

They actually spend more... but anyway they have drafted better than the Reds in the past 6-7 years. They are going to have issues as well when contracts for guys like Wacha, Carpenter, and Wong come up.

 

Reds had the highest payroll in the division at the start of the season. Yes St.Louis have to unload high salary guys. They seem to handle it better. We always say its all about pitching right. So the Reds blow up a pretty stout starting 5 but sign high salary position player. Hmm.

 

Reds had the highest payroll in the division at the start of the season. Yes St.Louis have to unload high salary guys. They seem to handle it better. We always say its all about pitching right. So the Reds blow up a pretty stout starting 5 but sign high salary position player. Hmm.

 

The Cardinals have the perfect mix of high salary guys and young controllable talent, and that is really hard to have. The Reds could have been that way if they drafted better the past few years.

 

They turned Albert Pujols into Wacha and Pescotty somehow. Sometimes teams just get lucky.

 

Look at the 2011 Cards roster and look at it now, completely different. It's not like they've gotten all this talent and have kept it around for years, they've been shuffling players in and out as well.

 

The Reds have had almost the same core of guys for 6 years.

Biggest difference is St Louis doesn't let emotion impact baseball decisions. They move guys before they are making major money on the down side of their careers and extend/pay for guys entering their prime. Keep payroll in the range they want and talent always moving up instead of down...

Banana Bob is spending more than any owners before him. If you want to go back to the days of Carl Lindner and Marge pinching pennies then pick a new team to root for.

Can't throw Marge in that crew

 

She was a racist wacko but she spent money when she had to and won a WS.

If you want to afford to compete then be prepared to spend $50 per ticket on bleachers and $100 on upper leavel seats.

 

Every single owner in sports has to make money, it's a business first. Castillini or any other club isn't going to lose money just to have a chance to win.

 

On the bolded, I think Mark Cuban is fine if loses money and the Mavs win an NBA. Jerry Jones as well if the Cowboys win a Super Bowl.

 

There are certainly franchise owners who view their team as a "toy" and if they don't make money but win they aren't going broke as a result. Frankly, today it's awfully hard to own a pro sports team and lose money.

 

In Cincinnati we've had an NFL owner for 50 year's who didn't have money, and thus ran the team as a family business. They still run it that way. Lot of rich Brown's because of the NFL. But that's the exception, not the rule. Most folks get rich first, then buy a team.

 

Hellbirds point has some validity in that Castillini can't afford to spend money like some other owners. He's rich, he's not as rich as some.

[/b]

 

On the bolded, I think Mark Cuban is fine if loses money and the Mavs win an NBA. Jerry Jones as well if the Cowboys win a Super Bowl.

 

There are certainly franchise owners who view their team as a "toy" and if they don't make money but win they aren't going broke as a result. Frankly, today it's awfully hard to own a pro sports team and lose money.

 

In Cincinnati we've had an NFL owner for 50 year's who didn't have money, and thus ran the team as a family business. They still run it that way. Lot of rich Brown's because of the NFL. But that's the exception, not the rule. Most folks get rich first, then buy a team.

 

Hellbirds point has some validity in that Castillini can't afford to spend money like some other owners. He's rich, he's not as rich as some.

 

Those sports have caps, so there is only so much they can spend anyway. Apples and oranges. Most NBA, NFL, and NHL teams spend close to the same amount of money. The Jaguars spend just as much as the Cowboys. The Hornets spend just as much at the Mavs. Only the MLB is the salary differential is huge. The top spenders will spend 100 million dollars or more than the lowest level ones.

Once the new TV deals kick in the Reds will have more money to spend. The only problem is other teams are getting deals as well so prices will go up for players anyway. The only way for the Reds to start out spending is if you love them to New York/LA where they can actually afford to.

 

Also The Bengals have a higher payroll than the Cowbys

I am sorta agree with Hellbird in a way. I hate the fact that people act like getting prospects means that we will eventually win again soon. From 1995 on all we heard about was the Reds were building for the future. Well the future took 15 years besides the 1999 season, before the future showed us even a playoff appearance. So I do absolutely hate when people get on the whole trade most of the team to get prospects kick, because there is no guarntee. Shoot the Royals have been bad for years, and has had top picks for years and it took them forever before they finally got a team together that now can compete. So I definitely get Hellbirds frustration with trading to get prospects.

 

At the same time I definitely understand with Cueto that they had to trade him. I would have loved for them to sign him, but that wasn't going to happen. So since we know it wasn't going to happen, we might as well get some young talent for him and hope it pans out and same with Leake. Now I am glad they didn't do a complete fire sell, because they still have pieces to build around and if things pan out right with the young pitching staff who knows about next year then.

 

At the end of the day baseball needs a dang salary cap. Make teams have to spend a certain amount, and also stops the big payroll teams from just always being able to out spend teams for top talent that becomes free agents. A salary cap would make baseball a lot of fun, and could potentially get baseball on track to gain ground on popularity with football.

Reading this thread I find it interesting that I agree with Hellbird more often than not. Mind you, I'm not going off the reservation beating his drum, but I'm not sold all these moves were as good as many of you think.

 

First, the elephant in the room is the contract the Reds signed Bailey to. I said days ago they could have signed both Cueto and Leake at the time longer term and now everyone in the media is saying it. I'm not sure how you give the Reds a pass on this deal.

 

Prospects are just that. Someone said that most of the top Reds players were once top prospects. So were a lot of guys in every franchise that don't work out.

 

Seems like top major league players should market major league players in return. Seems like simple math to me. I'm giving you a proven number one, I want a couple guys that can play for me tomorrow in return.

 

My math may be a bit off, but the Reds gave up two arms that have been a large part of their rotation for the last five plus years, for ONE player who has seen major league duty? Color me unimpressed with the return.

 

Baseball economics isn't nearly as difficult to figure out as you guys want to make it. Don't spend a ton on a terrible contract, and all is good. The Cards turn over their roster, allow guys to walk, and yet are never "waiting for another window". Sounds like settling to me.

 

Fantasy baseball seems to have given us plenty of arm-chair GM's who are willing to tell us how we should think and how important "prospects" are. As if everyone should be excited that we are hoarding our pieces, and we might come get ya in 2019. Oh boy, sign me up.

I am sorta agree with Hellbird in a way. I hate the fact that people act like getting prospects means that we will eventually win again soon. From 1995 on all we heard about was the Reds were building for the future. Well the future took 15 years besides the 1999 season, before the future showed us even a playoff appearance. So I do absolutely hate when people get on the whole trade most of the team to get prospects kick, because there is no guarntee. Shoot the Royals have been bad for years, and has had top picks for years and it took them forever before they finally got a team together that now can compete. So I definitely get Hellbirds frustration with trading to get prospects.

 

At the same time I definitely understand with Cueto that they had to trade him. I would have loved for them to sign him, but that wasn't going to happen. So since we know it wasn't going to happen, we might as well get some young talent for him and hope it pans out and same with Leake. Now I am glad they didn't do a complete fire sell, because they still have pieces to build around and if things pan out right with the young pitching staff who knows about next year then.

 

At the end of the day baseball needs a dang salary cap. Make teams have to spend a certain amount, and also stops the big payroll teams from just always being able to out spend teams for top talent that becomes free agents. A salary cap would make baseball a lot of fun, and could potentially get baseball on track to gain ground on popularity with football.

 

We ended up making a lot of the same points. Totally agree with your first graph.

 

second graph, I agree Cueto had to be moved given all the circumstances involved (more than a little bit were Reds self induced though). But why no proven major league talent in return? If the deadline was looming, why not trade him in the off season? Who thought this Reds team was playoff bound in December?

 

Last graph, I think the ship has sailed on a salary cap in baseball. Ownership missed their chance decades ago, and the players union has all the power now. They'll never agree to it. Holding out for one could result in the longest strike in sports history.

 

Same graph, not seeing baseball pushing the NFL under any circumstances. Games are still to long, season last forever, and honestly the way the game is meant to be played is just too slow for most fans attention span.

 

I've had a pretty good relationship with baseball for most of my life, but I'll be honest. It's hard for me to watch closely anymore. I'm used to something happening every 10 seconds, or else I'm checking my phone. The last thing I want to see is a guy throw a ball, wait 40 seconds to throw another pitch, then their is a foul ball, and we wait more.

 

Happened tonight with the Reds game. Tuned in during the ninth when the Pirates were rallying. It was excruciating to watch. I just wanted to see how the game ended.

Reading this thread I find it interesting that I agree with Hellbird more often than not. Mind you, I'm not going off the reservation beating his drum, but I'm not sold all these moves were as good as many of you think.

 

First, the elephant in the room is the contract the Reds signed Bailey to. I said days ago they could have signed both Cueto and Leake at the time longer term and now everyone in the media is saying it. I'm not sure how you give the Reds a pass on this deal.

 

Prospects are just that. Someone said that most of the top Reds players were once top prospects. So were a lot of guys in every franchise that don't work out.

 

Seems like top major league players should market major league players in return. Seems like simple math to me. I'm giving you a proven number one, I want a couple guys that can play for me tomorrow in return.

 

My math may be a bit off, but the Reds gave up two arms that have been a large part of their rotation for the last five plus years, for ONE player who has seen major league duty? Color me unimpressed with the return.

 

Baseball economics isn't nearly as difficult to figure out as you guys want to make it. Don't spend a ton on a terrible contract, and all is good. The Cards turn over their roster, allow guys to walk, and yet are never "waiting for another window". Sounds like settling to me.

 

Fantasy baseball seems to have given us plenty of arm-chair GM's who are willing to tell us how we should think and how important "prospects" are. As if everyone should be excited that we are hoarding our pieces, and we might come get ya in 2019. Oh boy, sign me up.

 

For one typically you aren't going to acquire experienced MLB talent for MLB talent. That's not the way these swaps work, the entire purpose of these trades were for the Royals and Giants to get better and make a run at a World Series. Why on earth would they trade the Reds players off of their ML rosters if this were the case? And if they did trade off their ML rosters it would most likely have to be bum bench guys because they are trying to get better not worse, the Reds wouldn't want to take on the payroll of acquiring ML level prospects anyways. The purpose of these trades from the Reds side is to rob the other team of some of their top prospects, this gives the reds affordable talent that they can control for a while. The Reds got "top prospects" that's the bottom line and all you can hope for is they fulfill their promise. Anyone that knows anything about the Reds farm system knows it is loaded with quality arms, Cueto and Leake were very expendable. Out of the Reds 10+ high level prospects that will be candidates for the rotation the next couple seasons I'd be very surprised if at least 2 of them don't become All-Stars in the Bigs and another 2 at least will be All-Star relievers at some point. Keeping Cueto and Leake wasn't going to do any good, why would we want to return the exact same team next season when they have been horrible for the last two. The consensus among the baseball experts is the Reds recieved a great haul of top flight talent in these trades, are they sometimes wrong sure they but the prospect ranking systems are usually pretty spot on these days.

For those that think the Reds should have gotten proven MLB talent in return.

 

 

You're KC or SF. Reds call offering a pitcher who will be a free agent in two months. The player will go on the open market.

 

Other teams are also talking to you about their MLB pitchers who are also going to be on the market in two months. So you have some options.

 

Why would you give up proven MLB bats who can go to Cincinnati TODAY and start?

We cannot compare Bob's financial situation to Cuban/Jones.

 

Those guys got WEALTHY (not rich - wealthy) before they ever owned a sports team. Losing money is no big deal to them on an annual basis. They have PLENTY of spare money and their franchise is appreciating.

 

You can't compare Bob's situation.

The moves were good because there wasn't another choice.

 

I agree that the stupid contract to Bailey helped caused some of it, but so did giving Votto the huge contract they did. I bet people would have gone crazy had they not signed Votto back then.

Everything doesn't work in a vacuum. It's perfectly fine to wish that we didn't have to get rid of Cueto or Leake or that we would have gotten some bats in return, but the Bailey deal and the first 100 games already happened. Given the present situation, the haul was about as good as we could have hoped for.