(03-13-2019, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why get involved in a thread where the ONLY claim is that not signing a day one free agent makes us the "bungles".

That is what got me started.

Because I was reading it and someone said something I disagreed with.

The front office is clueless. They have no concept of building a winning franchise. They let a small sample size of success go to their heads and they like to point to the couple of
decent seasons in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-13-2019, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why get involved in a thread where the ONLY claim is that not signing a day one free agent makes us the "bungles".

That is what got me started.

(03-13-2019, 06:39 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Gee, great point, guess we've better go ahead and let AJ Green walk.

Do you read some of your own posts? Like you do understand that it's possible to have a bad record AND good players, right? 

Depends on your goals. If you think it’s time to start over, then you do move A.J. It’s like having Votto in the Reds the last five or whatever years. Totally meaningless. But you will catch hell from a lot of fans. Unless you can show there’s a solid plan.

(03-13-2019, 07:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Depends on your goals. If you think it’s time to start over, then you do move A.J.  It’s like having Votto in the Reds the last five or whatever years. Totally meaningless. But you will catch hell from a lot of fans. Unless you can show there’s a solid plan.

I get the argument, but I don't buy it. Turnaround in the NFL happen quickly; even if you think you'll stink the next year or two, there's a good chance you can have it turned around right after in which case you're better off having a guy like AJ around.

It's different in baseball where it takes years for a small market team to put together a winner... in that case, you do trade your stars away when you're not going to compete because you are most likely 4-5 years away from turning it around, and the only way you're going to have that turn around is if you hit on a bunch of young players at once.

The Reds are an interesting comparison, though. They've had a very active offseason. Will they manage to finish higher than 4th place with all these no players? I'm not so sure, and if they don't, and all of these guys walk next year... was it worth it?

(03-13-2019, 07:21 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I get the argument, but I don't buy it. Turnaround in the NFL happen quickly; even if you think you'll stink the next year or two, there's a good chance you can have it turned around right after in which case you're better off having a guy like AJ around.

It's different in baseball where it takes years for a small market team to put together a winner... in that case, you do trade your stars away when you're not going to compete because you are most likely 4-5 years away from turning it around, and the only way you're going to have that turn around is if you hit on a bunch of young players at once.

The Reds are an interesting comparison, though. They've had a very active offseason. Will they manage to finish higher than 4th place with all these no players? I'm not so sure, and if they don't, and all of these guys walk next year... was it worth it?

Not to get off subject, but the Reds has to do something. I’ve been to one game in 3 years and I don’t think I’m alone. It’s a social event on the weekends so they do a little better, but the weekdays are dead. When you get the feeling management has no clue what they are doing and there really is no sign it’s going to turn around, why bother?

(03-12-2019, 10:42 PM)Phil in BG Wrote: What have you seen the Patriots do so far? The Saints? The Steelers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I saw them win Super Bowls in the past. Is this a trick question? A bad year for the Steelers is 9-7, the Saints and Pats, well Saints should have made it to Super Bowl and Pats won it again so already have great rosters.

(03-13-2019, 08:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not to get off subject, but the Reds has to do something.  I’ve been to one game in 3 years and I don’t think I’m alone. It’s a social event on the weekends so they do a little better, but the weekdays are dead.  When you get the feeling management has no clue what they are doing and there really is no sign it’s going to turn around, why bother?

Bengals fan base is heading down to the high 30 thousands from the 65K years ago. Do they care?

(03-13-2019, 08:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not to get off subject, but the Reds has to do something.  I’ve been to one game in 3 years and I don’t think I’m alone. It’s a social event on the weekends so they do a little better, but the weekdays are dead.  When you get the feeling management has no clue what they are doing and there really is no sign it’s going to turn around, why bother?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But I think it leads to interesting questions:
1) If they don't finish in the top half of the division, was it worth it? (debatable)
2) If they're sitting in 4th place in, say, July, are people still going to show up and see them? (I'd say no)
3) If all these guys leave after next year and it just leaves Reds fans more jaded for letting them go, was it worth it? (the key question)

(03-13-2019, 08:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I saw them win Super Bowls in the past. Is this a trick question? A bad year for the Steelers is 9-7, the Saints and Pats, well Saints should have made it to Super Bowl and Pats won it again so already have great rosters.

The thread is about this years free agent signings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-13-2019, 09:03 PM)Phil in BG Wrote: The thread is about this years free agent signings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and teams who win Super Bowls have much better rosters than teams that win 6 games so you can’t really use them as a barometer. Maybe big name free agents aren’t what the Bengals need but it isn’t because the Pats aren’t.