..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/star-pitcher-trevor-bauer-reportedly-makes-free-agency-decision/ar-BB1dqRjC?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

I remember when the Red's tried to acquire Vida Blue and the commissioner stepped in.

Dodgers aren't playing around. They want to repeat bad (and then maybe three-peat?).

Reds have been pathetic this offseason and Bob needs to sell the team to someone who can both afford to run it and won't run it as an incompetent nepotism/cronyism team.... but regardless of who the owner is, I don't think the Reds were ever going to be able to offer what is essentially a 2yr/$85m deal.

The longer I am a Reds fan, the longer I wonder what is the purpose of watching Baseball when there's no parity and teams can just outspend other teams?

(02-09-2021, 09:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The longer I am a Reds fan, the longer I wonder what is the purpose of watching Baseball when there's no parity and teams can just outspend other teams?

No parity and you sometimes just wonder how much it actually matters to the smaller market owners to win.  They're not going to compete with the spending, so they know their chances are more limited.  I don't know if the statement was truly reflective of the business, but I remember watching Moneyball and the A's basically saying look, we can't compete with the big spenders in the league, and that's okay.  It's just a fun family outing and that's all it needs to be.  I feel like that's been the experience of a Reds fan for many years now.  They'll make a couple of offseason moves, hope for the best, but at the end of the day they're not fully in to win it.  

(02-09-2021, 12:49 PM)MileHighGrowler Wrote: No parity and you sometimes just wonder how much it actually matters to the smaller market owners to win.  They're not going to compete with the spending, so they know their chances are more limited.  I don't know if the statement was truly reflective of the business, but I remember watching Moneyball and the A's basically saying look, we can't compete with the big spenders in the league, and that's okay.  It's just a fun family outing and that's all it needs to be.  I feel like that's been the experience of a Reds fan for many years now.  They'll make a couple of offseason moves, hope for the best, but at the end of the day they're not fully in to win it.  

Yea. This is why the NFL, in my opinion, is infinitely better than the MLB. Parity is absolutely paramount when discussing sports. Otherwise, what's the point? Oh, you can spend 3x as much money as the other teams and win? Good job, I guess? 

The only really notable thing that can happen in MLB is when a low budget team is improbably good (like the 2015 Royals or 2003 Marlins) and those are almost always due to incessant tanking to get a bunch of high draft picks, those high draft picks happening to work out all in the same ~5 year window (which isn't typical in baseball because a lot of the most talented players are drafted straight out of high school, so you have 5 to 10 years before they see any meaningful MLB impact with high bust potential) and then the team just milks those cheap young players until they are out of arbitration. Then that team usually goes into a deep hibernation while they await another period of high draft picks to work out all at the same time.

I thought that the Reds could have been that group in 2012 when they had Joey Votto, Brandon Phillips, Jay Bruce and Scott Rolen leading their line up and a pitching staff with Cueto, Latos, Leake, Bailey and Chapman all peaking at the same time while being relatively affordable. But they blew it by getting swept at home against San Francisco after taking a 2-0 lead on the road. And now we've been stuck rebuilding for close to a decade now.

It's just discouraging that any time a small market team has a good player, they are destined to leave the team. It's like we're a farm team for the real MLB teams.

The Reds, on top of being a small market, made the major mistake of putting the Joey Votto yoke around their necks for years and years. They don't even have a chance at being competitive until he's gone.

I enjoyed his short stay in Cincinnati, but now he's in blue he's my sworn enemy.. ALL Dodgers are rotten, low life scoundrels'. End of story.. 

(02-09-2021, 02:00 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: The Reds, on top of being a small market, made the major mistake of putting the Joey Votto yoke around their necks for years and years. They don't even have a chance at being competitive until he's gone.

He's going from most loved Red to most hated in a five year span. There are still fans that love him, and I get that, but they are becoming fewer and fewer.

(02-09-2021, 10:25 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: He's going from most loved Red to most hated in a five year span. There are still fans that love him, and I get that, but they are becoming fewer and fewer.

I don't think he'll be all that hated.  the Reds are an unserious organization, the Dodgers are not.  The Reds need to sell off more assets and start another crap rebuild so they can pretend to compete for a season, then set, sell, sell again.  Then they will of course suck again for 5 or 6 seasons.  

Bauer is no threat to us as a Dodger.  They play for titles, the Reds play to line Castellini's pockets and provide family jobs.

(02-11-2021, 04:53 PM)samhain Wrote: I don't think he'll be all that hated.  the Reds are an unserious organization, the Dodgers are not.  The Reds need to sell off more assets and start another crap rebuild so they can pretend to compete for a season, then set, sell, sell again.  Then they will of course suck again for 5 or 6 seasons.  

Bauer is no threat to us as a Dodger.  They play for titles, the Reds play to line Castellini's pockets and provide family jobs.

I think the comment was in reference to Votto (I could be wrong, but I read it that way).  I definitely have seen a shift in the views toward Votta as his production has decreased and his contract continues to plague the team.  I don't know what they were thinking when they inked that one.  At the time I didn't like it, but was told by many how good it would be as an anchor to the team.  Unfortunately, it's become a boat anchor, not the anchor everyone had hoped.  

(02-11-2021, 06:00 PM)MileHighGrowler Wrote: I think the comment was in reference to Votto (I could be wrong, but I read it that way).  I definitely have seen a shift in the views toward Votta as his production has decreased and his contract continues to plague the team.  I don't know what they were thinking when they inked that one.  At the time I didn't like it, but was told by many how good it would be as an anchor to the team.  Unfortunately, it's become a boat anchor, not the anchor everyone had hoped.  

Yeah, my mistake there.  

Votto is a rough deal for this team.  I honestly thought he'd age better given the fact that he's more of a high-average doubles hitter than a raw power guy.  I have no idea why he's fallen off like he has.  He's 37, and it's not like guys with his style at the plate don't remain productive at that age.  It's almost like his overanlytical approach has finally gotten the better of him mentally.  He overthinks everything.  He's getting paid to be the guy that you want hitting with the game on the line, but he's definitely not.  

Its unlikely, but if he continues to crater, maybe he'll get tired of crapping on his legacy at some point.

Unrelated to Votto, it's absolutely pathetic that this team couldn't shell out 10-12 mil for a starting shortstop.  It wasn't going to bankrupt them.  Going into camp with Dee Gordon (sucks in the field and at the plate), some scrub castoff from NY/Philly, and I guess Kyle Farmer is a joke.  Bob needs to sell the team to a real owner.  If they aren't trying to win this year, they need to sell off assets.  They can't wait too long like they did last time.  They got jack squat for Cute, Frazier, or Chapman because they are stupid and waited too long.  

Yeah, it was about Votto and that club killing contract. I was glad Bauer flipped him shit when he made an error on a routine play that led to two or three earned runs. He looked very pissed coming into the dugout after that inning and he was going off on Votto.

(02-11-2021, 06:00 PM)MileHighGrowler Wrote:   I don't know what they were thinking when they inked that one.  At the time I didn't like it, but was told by many how good it would be as an anchor to the team.  

At the time the figured that they needed to keep some of their own start players if they wanted to compete other than just being a AAA team that let every star leave for a big money club.

Votto earned his money over the first 6 years of the dea.  So it was no anchor then.  Over that stretch Mike Trout was the only player in MLB with a higher OPS and it was only by 9 points (.987 to .978).  From '12-'17 Votto was 3rd in BA (.314), first in OB% (.445), 8th in SLG% (.533) and was consistently one of the top vote getters in the MVP race (2nd in '17, 3rd in '15, 6th in '13, 7th in '16, and 14th in '12).

Only problem with the contract was that it appears to have been for too long (12 years) but at the time it was considered a "career contract".  

(02-12-2021, 02:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: At the time the figured that they needed to keep some of their own start players if they wanted to compete other than just being a AAA team that let every star leave for a big money club.

Votto earned his money over the first 6 years of the dea.  So it was no anchor then.  Over that stretch Mike Trout was the only player in MLB with a higher OPS and it was only by 9 points (.987 to .978).  From '12-'17 Votto was 3rd in BA (.314), first in OB% (.445), 8th in SLG% (.533) and was consistently one of the top vote getters in the MVP race (2nd in '17, 3rd in '15, 6th in '13, 7th in '16, and 14th in '12).

Only problem with the contract was that it appears to have been for too long (12 years) but at the time it was considered a "career contract".  

I get that.  But a career contract for one player and completely against the way they typically manage contracts with the org was concerning.  I don't usually pay super close attention to Reds contracts, but I feel the vast majority are 3 years and under and over 5 is a lot for the team.  To hit double digit years just felt out of place and putting too many eggs in one basket.  

(02-09-2021, 09:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The longer I am a Reds fan, the longer I wonder what is the purpose of watching Baseball when there's no parity and teams can just outspend other teams?

I've been there for 20 years or so now... I can't quit baseball completely, but I only loosely follow the Reds anymore. Last season was sorta exciting I guess, but it wasn't a real season, and the Reds went out with a wimper. Looks like it's back to the bottom of the division this coming season.

(02-14-2021, 09:15 PM)jason Wrote: I've been there for 20 years or so now... I can't quit baseball completely, but I only loosely follow the Reds anymore. Last season was sorta exciting I guess, but it wasn't a real season, and the Reds went out with a wimper.  Looks like it's back to the bottom of the division this coming season.

Same

Baseball to me just has never been the same since the strike, 95 ? 

(02-14-2021, 10:09 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Same

Baseball to me just has never been the same since the strike, 95 ? 

I still liked the sport a lot after the strike... Though that is about the time that the Reds started to sink into irrelevancy. I lived in Columbus at the time, and would go to a lot of Clippers games. They were the Yankees' AAA team back then, so I got to see a lot of really good players coming up... Jeter, Soriano, .... Guys like that. So it was kinda exciting to see how they played out in the majors.

But yeah... In the last 25 years or so the Reds have really only been exciting for what? Maybe 7 seasons? In a sport that plays 162 games, and consists of haves and have nots, that enough to kill anyone's interest.

(02-14-2021, 10:27 PM)jason Wrote: I still liked the sport a lot after the strike... Though that is about the time that the Reds started to sink into irrelevancy. I lived in Columbus at the time, and would go to a lot of Clippers games. They were the Yankees' AAA team back then, so I got to see a lot of really good players coming up... Jeter, Soriano, .... Guys like that. So it was kinda exciting to see how they played out in the majors.

But yeah... In the last 25 years or so the Reds have really only been exciting for what? Maybe 7 seasons? In a sport that plays 162 games, and consists of haves and have nots, that enough to kill anyone's interest.

Right

The 2010-13 teams were the last teams to be competitive. And they've still never recovered from taking first two games from Giants on the road then getting swept at home.

Then 7 seasons of team irrelevant since. And like 3 of the last 4 seasons they've dug such a big hole in first month and a half of season and can't get out ! Season is over in May and it's very hard to stay interested.

My interest is also tanking from the HR, K, or nothing game they play today as well.

(02-06-2021, 09:05 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Dodgers aren't playing around. They want to repeat bad (and then maybe three-peat?).

Reds have been pathetic this offseason and Bob needs to sell the team to someone who can both afford to run it and won't run it as an incompetent nepotism/cronyism team.... but regardless of who the owner is, I don't think the Reds were ever going to be able to offer what is essentially a 2yr/$85m deal.

As a lifelong Dodger fan here in LA, very happy to see at least my baseball team is getting it done in offseason...now lets see what Bengals do as a splash in FA and the draft.