4 hours ago, Jack of all Trades said:

The Reds are going nowhere and neither are the Bengals.  Bengals are proving that if you build it they will come.  Winning takes care of a lot of things, but Reds management did not appear to get the memo.

I don't think the Reds will go anywhere.   The Bengals are a bit more iffy.   They are certainly streaking at the right time.   Paycor (PBS) is almost 25 years old and is no longer state of the art (honestly it never was.). When they ask for a new stadium, how they ask will be very important.  If they have a title under their belt and are still Burrows team in contention every year, they maybe able to fool the public into springing for new digs.  If not, and they try the same tactics they did in the late 90's, the city and fans may just say don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

On 1/15/2023 at 8:20 PM, Jumper_Dad said:

Careful what you wish for, next owner would probably try to move them. 

MLB will literally never allow it, and they have a substantial say in this. 

21 hours ago, The Raven said:

I don't think the Reds will go anywhere.   The Bengals are a bit more iffy.   They are certainly streaking at the right time.   Paycor (PBS) is almost 25 years old and is no longer state of the art (honestly it never was.). When they ask for a new stadium, how they ask will be very important.  If they have a title under their belt and are still Burrows team in contention every year, they maybe able to fool the public into springing for new digs.  If not, and they try the same tactics they did in the late 90's, the city and fans may just say don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

With the current NFL TV deals ($347,000,000 per year per team and going up yearly) teams can afford to pay for a new stadium without much if any local money. 

MLB teams by comparison only get about $64,000,000 nationally plus local TV money (the biggest disadvantage for the Reds).

ESPN ranks the Reds farm system 5th overall.  

 

5. Cincinnati Reds ($276.5 million)

Last year: 20th, $166.5 million

Top-100 prospects: 4

The Reds made a big move up this list after trading a number of veteran big leaguers in an effort to create a wave of young talent to help them compete once again. The second and third prospects on their team list are the headliners in the Luis Castillo trade, No. 4 prospect Cam Collier was last summer's first-round pick, and four more players who rank in their top 10 were acquired in the past 11 months. All of those players except Collier should be in the upper minors this season, so the Reds could be interesting again soon.

I spotted some MLB tweet predicting the Reds to drop 102 games this year and be the worse team in baseball. It was from so baseball magazine, I believe.

This will be a dismal, albeit interesting, season.  They will be bad by MLB standards but there are some interesting and entertaining potential young stars that will be fun to watch if they can keep their enthusiasm through 100 losses.

How good will the young starters be? That is this season in a nutshell. They could lose 100 or be close to .500. It all depends on the young starters.

The problem with the three young starters and reliever Diaz is they will all be free agents the same year     Plus India and Stephenson will be free agents the year before, no way the Reds will sign all of them.

5 hours ago, dshoe40 said:

The problem with the three young starters and reliever Diaz is they will all be free agents the same year     Plus India and Stephenson will be free agents the year before, no way the Reds will sign all of them.

Not with this ownership group.