Post by kinsm on Dec 16, 2014 22:21:23 GMT -5
DECEMBER 16TH:
DECEMBER 12TH:
DECEMBER 11TH:
DECEMBER 9TH:
ARE YOU AMONG THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE REDS owe their fans a better explanation for this offseason than the frequent quotes from Walt Jocketty?
Do you want to hear The Plan, beyond cutting payroll?
Do you want to know why The Club needs to cut payroll?
You've done your part, mostly. Attendance the last 2 years was 4th and 5th-highest in club history, trailing only 1976-77-78. Last year's 2.476 million was laudable, given the product.
MLB is awash in money. The only place the Reds lag is in local radio-TV deals. That lag is significant, when compared with large markets. But they share in that wealth, too: Thirty percent of local TV-radio revenues are shared.
When the Bengals poor-mouthed about money, we wanted proof. Should we ask the Reds, too?
Do you think the Reds are taking unfair advantage of the ticket-buying boost that comes with hosting the All-Star Game?
The Big Man has said all he wants only to break even, that every penny of profit goes back into the product. Reds payrolls have increased significantly on his watch. But now, there is a retrenchment. Good players – the sort that could alter the landscape in the Central – are being acquired by other clubs, not The Club.
The window that opened wide beginning in 2010 is closing quickly. The Reds subtract, at least in the immediate sense. They are back in If Mode, banking on good health and better production from current players. If Mode doesn't often produce winners.
So. . . are explanations in order, beyond poor Walt being trotted out time and again to use the phrase "payroll challenges''?
Do you want to hear The Plan, beyond cutting payroll?
Do you want to know why The Club needs to cut payroll?
You've done your part, mostly. Attendance the last 2 years was 4th and 5th-highest in club history, trailing only 1976-77-78. Last year's 2.476 million was laudable, given the product.
MLB is awash in money. The only place the Reds lag is in local radio-TV deals. That lag is significant, when compared with large markets. But they share in that wealth, too: Thirty percent of local TV-radio revenues are shared.
When the Bengals poor-mouthed about money, we wanted proof. Should we ask the Reds, too?
Do you think the Reds are taking unfair advantage of the ticket-buying boost that comes with hosting the All-Star Game?
The Big Man has said all he wants only to break even, that every penny of profit goes back into the product. Reds payrolls have increased significantly on his watch. But now, there is a retrenchment. Good players – the sort that could alter the landscape in the Central – are being acquired by other clubs, not The Club.
The window that opened wide beginning in 2010 is closing quickly. The Reds subtract, at least in the immediate sense. They are back in If Mode, banking on good health and better production from current players. If Mode doesn't often produce winners.
So. . . are explanations in order, beyond poor Walt being trotted out time and again to use the phrase "payroll challenges''?
DECEMBER 12TH:
I am not an oracle. The crystal ball is in the shop. When I get it back, I'm quitting this gig and moving to Vegas, where I will bet on sports, win all my bets, make tall piles of cash and move to Bora Bora.
Until then, I will write about what we know.
OK, seamheads?
What is it about Twitter that elicits the worst in people? Is it the anonymity? Is it generational? Does everyone under a certain age feel duty-bound to be snarky and venomous?
Or is it simply a common trait among amateur, self-proclaimed baseball experts, people whose connections to the game and those within it are purely vicarious and coincidental?
Man, I got bashed yesterday, after Tweeting this:
2 starting pitchers for 4 minor leaguers equals what? Not yet a LF.
You'd have thought I praised world war or the St. Louis Cardinals.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
This segment of the baseball-interested population has rapidly become like Big Soccer Fan, in one sad respect: If you disagree with them, you are stupid. If your opinion differs from theirs, you don't know the game. It's a misplaced and undeserved elitism that deadens debate. Which is a shame, because no sport fosters debate like baseball.
So let's review what has happened with the Cincinnati Reds in the last 24 hours. Not what might happen, what we think might happen, what we hope happens. What exactly occurred.
They traded 40 percent of last year's starting rotation for four minor-league players.
Excuse me. Two guys who were in Class A last year, and two others whose major-league contributions are so slight, we have no way of knowing for certain how they will perform.
In other words, they dealt Mat Latos and Alfredo Simon for two players who definitely won't help them this year, and two others whose potential contributions are purely speculative at this point.
With me?
The expectation is, now that The Club has saved $17 million or so, that Phase 2 will involve acquiring a LF and shoring up the bullpen. Maybe they will make a big trade, perhaps even involving some of the pieces they acquired on Thursday. When/if that happens, I will comment on that. Until then, let's just say that dumping money to be able to afford Aoki or Morse doesn't exactly give me pennant fever.
Perhaps, you disagree. That's fine. In This Space, I aim for civility, not snark. The grown-ups here like it that way.
What I know today is, the Reds dealt their No. 2 starter for kids. They dealt an All-Star who won 15 games, for more kids. Latos had injury issues last year. Until then, he did not. His injury history is no worse than Cueto's. He was not resoundingly loved in the home clubhouse. So what?
Simon's loss will be felt more in the bullpen. He had a flash-in-the-pan first half last year. I wrote at the ASB they should try to move him, because his baseball card showed his good fortune wouldn't last. It didn't. Nevertheless, he was a very valuable member of a pitching staff whose bullpen now is Chappy and crossed fingers.
Did the Reds get better Thursday?
No, they did not. Not for this year they didn't. And in baseball now, This Year is all that matters. Five-year plans are history. I know a certain segment of the baseball-interested population owns a fascination for all things Prospect. That's fine. But "prospect'' is baseball-speak for "ain't done nothin' yet.''
The Reds have had lots of prospects over the years. If you've been around awhile, you might recall a few: Chad Mottola, Willie Greene, Brandon Larson, C.J. Nitkowski, Chris Gruler, Ty Howington, John Oliver, Scott Bryant, Pat Watkins, David Espinosa. Etc. Etc. Etc. First-round picks, all. Fantastic prospects.
Those who drool over the pages of Baseball America have every right to do so. I prefer knowing what I've got, not wishing/thinking/hoping on all those great prospects. Eugenio Suarez might be the next Barry Larkin. Or he might be the next Espinosa. I have no idea. And neither do you.
All I can comment on is what's in front of me. Right now, I see Looie replace Taveras with Heyward. I see the Cubs bring in a very good, proven manager, a potential Cy Young starting pitcher and a catcher who made the all star team last year. The Reds dump money, er, gather funds, and acquire four guys who might or might not help them down the road.
If some of the cash savings go toward a LF who (A) gets on base a lot (B) hits with power or (C) both, I will applaud that, same as I'm expressing skepticism now.
Are we good now?
Probably not? OK. I respect your opinion, I welcome the debate. Please attempt civility.
Until then, I will write about what we know.
OK, seamheads?
What is it about Twitter that elicits the worst in people? Is it the anonymity? Is it generational? Does everyone under a certain age feel duty-bound to be snarky and venomous?
Or is it simply a common trait among amateur, self-proclaimed baseball experts, people whose connections to the game and those within it are purely vicarious and coincidental?
Man, I got bashed yesterday, after Tweeting this:
2 starting pitchers for 4 minor leaguers equals what? Not yet a LF.
You'd have thought I praised world war or the St. Louis Cardinals.
What the hell is wrong with you people?
This segment of the baseball-interested population has rapidly become like Big Soccer Fan, in one sad respect: If you disagree with them, you are stupid. If your opinion differs from theirs, you don't know the game. It's a misplaced and undeserved elitism that deadens debate. Which is a shame, because no sport fosters debate like baseball.
So let's review what has happened with the Cincinnati Reds in the last 24 hours. Not what might happen, what we think might happen, what we hope happens. What exactly occurred.
They traded 40 percent of last year's starting rotation for four minor-league players.
Excuse me. Two guys who were in Class A last year, and two others whose major-league contributions are so slight, we have no way of knowing for certain how they will perform.
In other words, they dealt Mat Latos and Alfredo Simon for two players who definitely won't help them this year, and two others whose potential contributions are purely speculative at this point.
With me?
The expectation is, now that The Club has saved $17 million or so, that Phase 2 will involve acquiring a LF and shoring up the bullpen. Maybe they will make a big trade, perhaps even involving some of the pieces they acquired on Thursday. When/if that happens, I will comment on that. Until then, let's just say that dumping money to be able to afford Aoki or Morse doesn't exactly give me pennant fever.
Perhaps, you disagree. That's fine. In This Space, I aim for civility, not snark. The grown-ups here like it that way.
What I know today is, the Reds dealt their No. 2 starter for kids. They dealt an All-Star who won 15 games, for more kids. Latos had injury issues last year. Until then, he did not. His injury history is no worse than Cueto's. He was not resoundingly loved in the home clubhouse. So what?
Simon's loss will be felt more in the bullpen. He had a flash-in-the-pan first half last year. I wrote at the ASB they should try to move him, because his baseball card showed his good fortune wouldn't last. It didn't. Nevertheless, he was a very valuable member of a pitching staff whose bullpen now is Chappy and crossed fingers.
Did the Reds get better Thursday?
No, they did not. Not for this year they didn't. And in baseball now, This Year is all that matters. Five-year plans are history. I know a certain segment of the baseball-interested population owns a fascination for all things Prospect. That's fine. But "prospect'' is baseball-speak for "ain't done nothin' yet.''
The Reds have had lots of prospects over the years. If you've been around awhile, you might recall a few: Chad Mottola, Willie Greene, Brandon Larson, C.J. Nitkowski, Chris Gruler, Ty Howington, John Oliver, Scott Bryant, Pat Watkins, David Espinosa. Etc. Etc. Etc. First-round picks, all. Fantastic prospects.
Those who drool over the pages of Baseball America have every right to do so. I prefer knowing what I've got, not wishing/thinking/hoping on all those great prospects. Eugenio Suarez might be the next Barry Larkin. Or he might be the next Espinosa. I have no idea. And neither do you.
All I can comment on is what's in front of me. Right now, I see Looie replace Taveras with Heyward. I see the Cubs bring in a very good, proven manager, a potential Cy Young starting pitcher and a catcher who made the all star team last year. The Reds dump money, er, gather funds, and acquire four guys who might or might not help them down the road.
If some of the cash savings go toward a LF who (A) gets on base a lot (B) hits with power or (C) both, I will applaud that, same as I'm expressing skepticism now.
Are we good now?
Probably not? OK. I respect your opinion, I welcome the debate. Please attempt civility.
DECEMBER 11TH:
MAYBE I MISSED SOMETHING. . . But I don't recall until the last several days the Reds saying they had to shave payroll. Do you? As I understood it, free agents were on the table (Morse, Aoki, a few others) in tandem with the notion of leaving intact the starting rotation.
Now, CTrent reports from the winter meetings that Jock says The Club needs a payroll haircut. "We need to move a little payroll,'' he said. Then, I guess to make fans feel better, Jock added, "Not all of it, but some.'' Whew. For a minute there, I thought they were selling Gapper to the circus.
"We're talking to free agents. But we're not committing until we do some other things.''
To recap: This is a club that knows exactly what it needs to get better, and has known since the All-Star Break last summer. It's also a club that has done squat about it.
Now, they can't pursue even average, aging talents such as Morse and Aoki without first dumping dollars. (Not all, but some.)
But hey, they do have the All-Star game.
Does this inspire your confidence and trust?
If you're not getting better, you're getting worse. Wishing and hoping are nice. Also, as meaningful as pixie dust.
SALT IN THE WOUND. . . The Dodgers traded Matt Kemp to San Diego. Here's the worst part, via AP:
The Dodgers will also send about $31 million to San Diego to cover part of Kemp's remaining $107 million salary, reports say.
That works out to the Pads paying Kemp about $15 mil a year, through 2019, when his deal ends. Way too pricey for the Reds, who are paying DDBP and Jay Bruce $12 mil instead.
AND THEN, THERE'S THIS, FROM FORBES. . .
(MLB) will see approx. $9 billion in gross revenues for the 2014 calendar year, a new record. Adjustments are still be calculated that could push the league slightly over the threshold with the value being described as "right there" in relation to $9 billion. That figure is up from $8 billion just last year, a staggering increase of 13 percent.
The reason for the increase? The league saw revenues double for new broadcast deals with their national network partners FOX, ESPN, and TBS that addedan additional $788.3 million a year to the league's coffers.
In 1995, MLB revenues were $1.4 billion, or over $2.14 billion when accounting for inflation. Since that time, gross revenues for the league have grown a whopping 321 percent in 19 years.
The Reds '95 payroll was $48 million. This year it will apparently be somewhat south (not all of it, but some) of last year's $114 million. Multiply 48 by 3.21, get 154. Follow me?
I'm sure The Club has reasons it can't spend even what it did last year. Perhaps you, as a ticket buyer, have similar reasons.
Now, CTrent reports from the winter meetings that Jock says The Club needs a payroll haircut. "We need to move a little payroll,'' he said. Then, I guess to make fans feel better, Jock added, "Not all of it, but some.'' Whew. For a minute there, I thought they were selling Gapper to the circus.
"We're talking to free agents. But we're not committing until we do some other things.''
To recap: This is a club that knows exactly what it needs to get better, and has known since the All-Star Break last summer. It's also a club that has done squat about it.
Now, they can't pursue even average, aging talents such as Morse and Aoki without first dumping dollars. (Not all, but some.)
But hey, they do have the All-Star game.
Does this inspire your confidence and trust?
If you're not getting better, you're getting worse. Wishing and hoping are nice. Also, as meaningful as pixie dust.
SALT IN THE WOUND. . . The Dodgers traded Matt Kemp to San Diego. Here's the worst part, via AP:
The Dodgers will also send about $31 million to San Diego to cover part of Kemp's remaining $107 million salary, reports say.
That works out to the Pads paying Kemp about $15 mil a year, through 2019, when his deal ends. Way too pricey for the Reds, who are paying DDBP and Jay Bruce $12 mil instead.
AND THEN, THERE'S THIS, FROM FORBES. . .
(MLB) will see approx. $9 billion in gross revenues for the 2014 calendar year, a new record. Adjustments are still be calculated that could push the league slightly over the threshold with the value being described as "right there" in relation to $9 billion. That figure is up from $8 billion just last year, a staggering increase of 13 percent.
The reason for the increase? The league saw revenues double for new broadcast deals with their national network partners FOX, ESPN, and TBS that addedan additional $788.3 million a year to the league's coffers.
In 1995, MLB revenues were $1.4 billion, or over $2.14 billion when accounting for inflation. Since that time, gross revenues for the league have grown a whopping 321 percent in 19 years.
The Reds '95 payroll was $48 million. This year it will apparently be somewhat south (not all of it, but some) of last year's $114 million. Multiply 48 by 3.21, get 154. Follow me?
I'm sure The Club has reasons it can't spend even what it did last year. Perhaps you, as a ticket buyer, have similar reasons.
DECEMBER 9TH:
THE CLUB will have a new LF by Opening Day. But the message being delivered now seems to be, "Don't get your hopes up too high.'' It could simply be customary Jocketty smokescreen. Or it could be money considerations – some caused by questionable existing contracts – will severely cramp Jock's style.
The Club currently has $75.5 mil attached to 11 guys not named Leake or Latos. That means it has roughly $40 mil left for everyone else, if it doesn't bump last year's payroll.
(All numbers courtesy of Cot's Contracts.)
There surely is incentive for The Big Man to spend more. The Last Supper Season is upon him, and as he will tell you, he ain't gettin' any younger. The Reds have desirable players to deal, even though Cueto is off the table and Chappy's name has never been mentioned. Either Latos or Leake could give a team 12-15 wins, 180-plus innings. That ought to be worth 20 homers and 80 BI.
Leake and Latos are final-year arbitration guys. Leake made $6 mil last year, Latos $7 mil. They won't be any cheaper this season.
But even if you remove one of those contracts from the back of the Reds' Brinks truck, you're still going to have to pay more for the names being tossed:
Justin Upton: $14.5 mil this year.
The Dodger triplets? Forget it. Kemp ($21), Crawford ($20.5), Ethier ($18).
Cespedes is the best fit, money wise, at $10.5. But he hits free agency next year.
So maybe what's left is Aoki or Morse. Do either of those gentlemen provoke your pennant fever?
It has been suggested LA would assume some money, just to be rid of one of the triplets. As much as the Reds would need them to remove? I'd love to see a healthy Kemp in LF. I'd also like to see Macchu Picchu on the back of a burro and drink beer with Babe Ruth.
I don't know what The Club is going to do. I'm just starting to feel it won't be the splash everyone hopes for. That's life in the Money Talks world of MLB.
Now, then. . .
The Club currently has $75.5 mil attached to 11 guys not named Leake or Latos. That means it has roughly $40 mil left for everyone else, if it doesn't bump last year's payroll.
(All numbers courtesy of Cot's Contracts.)
There surely is incentive for The Big Man to spend more. The Last Supper Season is upon him, and as he will tell you, he ain't gettin' any younger. The Reds have desirable players to deal, even though Cueto is off the table and Chappy's name has never been mentioned. Either Latos or Leake could give a team 12-15 wins, 180-plus innings. That ought to be worth 20 homers and 80 BI.
Leake and Latos are final-year arbitration guys. Leake made $6 mil last year, Latos $7 mil. They won't be any cheaper this season.
But even if you remove one of those contracts from the back of the Reds' Brinks truck, you're still going to have to pay more for the names being tossed:
Justin Upton: $14.5 mil this year.
The Dodger triplets? Forget it. Kemp ($21), Crawford ($20.5), Ethier ($18).
Cespedes is the best fit, money wise, at $10.5. But he hits free agency next year.
So maybe what's left is Aoki or Morse. Do either of those gentlemen provoke your pennant fever?
It has been suggested LA would assume some money, just to be rid of one of the triplets. As much as the Reds would need them to remove? I'd love to see a healthy Kemp in LF. I'd also like to see Macchu Picchu on the back of a burro and drink beer with Babe Ruth.
I don't know what The Club is going to do. I'm just starting to feel it won't be the splash everyone hopes for. That's life in the Money Talks world of MLB.
Now, then. . .
