Reds Payroll Problems Off Season

[kevin]

First off Joey Votto has to go on just payroll alone. The Reds are into him for 22.5 Mil a year for 5 more years. Now those who disagree then there is no talking to you, and enjoy last place the next 5 years.

The Reds must put all effort into making some kind of trade for Votto where a team picks up the majority of his contract and Reds get out of this contract. This is not about Votto at the plate. This is about dumping his contract. Trading Votto and still paying him is stupid, because the entire point of trading him is to Not Pay Him.

Dumping Votto saves 22,5 M a year, 112.5 M over 5 years. Reds need to dump the majority of this. Dumping Bailey contract shows anything possible.

Reds can't afford Votto and all arguments are pointless. It all ends back at Reds Can't Afford Him.

So Votto HAS to go or all other off season moves are pointless.

Along with Votto, Reds can't afford Gausman or Galvis. Gausman at 9.3 M and Galvis at 5 M. They need to go also

Then there are Free Agents not to resign in Wood and shortstop Iglesias. Wood at 9.6 and Iglesias at 2.5 but he will get much more in free agency than that. I like Iglesias but his price tag will go too high and there are other good fielding shortstops at a less price tag.

So on getting rid of contracts of VOTTO, Gausman, Galvis, Wood, shortstop Iglesias the Reds dump around 49 million in payroll.

The 49 million is not all profit because Reds must resign Aquino, Senzel and Van Meter for the 2020 season. Reds however would be wise not to get carried away by their rookie seasons and sign them to Votto type contracts. The Reds are not the Yankees and must avoid 100 to 200 million contracts to just one player. It leaves little payroll for other players.

So there are players not to keep and players to keep.

Reds really have to trade most of Votto contract and dump Gausman, Galvis, Wood & Shortstop Iglesias and trim around 49 million from the budget. Then dig into the 49 million a little to keep Aquino, Van Meter and Senzel at not over paid contracts into next season.

Again, if they keep Votto they are not moving into the future and are locked into Last Place. Those who can't see this are too Old School Baseball not looking at the economics. If Votto continues to struggle at the plate or has a comeback season it doesn't matter either way, because Reds can't afford to spend this much money on one player.

To those who would cry to see him go, remember if the Reds can finish in Last with Votto, they can finish no worse than Last without Votto.

Trading Votto and most of his contract won't be easy, but that whole Bailey deal shows anything possible. Put everything into freeing up most of that 112.5 million and more they still have to pay him. Get out from under. This has nothing to do with homers or OBP. Dump his too high contract. It's easy to see Dodgers dumped payroll on Reds also, but all 1 year contracts the Reds got out of fast enough. Maybe the Reds can trade Votto for a bunch of high one year contracts and dump the one year guys just as fast again.

I don't expect man crush fans to understand the economics of this, but it is very simple. Reds are NOT the Yankees and not even close, and Reds can not afford this contract. It's that simple. The 5 year Votto contract is like a 5 year Last Place prison sentence.

There may be other player moves, but these are the main ones. Dump contracts of Votto, Gausman, Garvis, Wood, SS-Iglesias at a savings of 49 mil, and keep Aquino, Van Meter, Senzel at contracts Reds can afford. This should leave a a good chunk of the 49 million for other much needed player moves coming up.

The Reds should continue to look for players on the cheap. There is nothing wrong with getting a Scooter Gennett or SS like Iglesias for a year or so on the cheap. Reds need to keep their eye out for more discount department store deals like these. So what if the guy is only here a year or two while he plays his butt off to be worth more in free agency, that's to Reds advantage.

[*psychdoctor*]

It takes two for a trade to occur. Maybe if Votto has a good next year then maybe a trade can occur. JVM has dropped some in my eyes. Same for Galvis. Gausman did not show anything.

[*bengalfan74*]

Kevin

I agree fully the Reds would be better off trading Votto, however, I highly doubt it happens:

Votto also doesn’t want to do what many championship-starved players in all sports have done for generations by moving to a different team ready-made to contend for a World Series title. He has a full no-trade clause in the 10-year extension he signed before the 2012 season.

“Winning a World Series really isn’t as much of a priority for me in another uniform,” Votto said. “I don’t think it would be as satisfying. It wouldn’t be mine, if that makes sense, joining a club that is on the precipice of winning a World Series. It just wouldn’t feel like I was very much really a part of it. These six straight years, it’s almost like it’ll make winning a World Series in this uniform, in this city, that much more satisfying.

https://www.mlb.com/reds/news/joey-votto-discusses-difficult-2019-season

[guyofthetiger]

I did not like the Griffey or Votto contracts. When will the front office learn that injuries and age affect players? Wait, they are trying to put people in the seats today and deal with the aftermath.

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-29-2019, 01:16 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I did not like the Griffey or Votto contracts. When will the front office learn that injuries and age affect players? Wait, they are trying to put people in the seats today and deal with the aftermath.

4 perhaps at most 5 years is the longest contract I'd ever consider. There's just to much that can happen during those super long contracts, as we're seeing.

[Circleville Guy]

(09-28-2019, 01:59 PM)kevin Wrote: First off Joey Votto has to go on just payroll alone. The Reds are into him for 22.5 Mil a year for 5 more years. Now those who disagree then there is no talking to you, and enjoy last place the next 5 years.

The Reds must put all effort into making some kind of trade for Votto where a team picks up the majority of his contract and Reds get out of this contract. This is not about Votto at the plate. This is about dumping his contract. Trading Votto and still paying him is stupid, because the entire point of trading him is to Not Pay Him.

Dumping Votto saves 22,5 M a year, 112.5 M over 5 years. Reds need to dump the majority of this. Dumping Bailey contract shows anything possible.

Reds can't afford Votto and all arguments are pointless. It all ends back at Reds Can't Afford Him.

So Votto HAS to go or all other off season moves are pointless.

Along with Votto, Reds can't afford Gausman or Galvis. Gausman at 9.3 M and Galvis at 5 M. They need to go also

Then there are Free Agents not to resign in Wood and shortstop Iglesias. Wood at 9.6 and Iglesias at 2.5 but he will get much more in free agency than that. I like Iglesias but his price tag will go too high and there are other good fielding shortstops at a less price tag.

So on getting rid of contracts of VOTTO, Gausman, Galvis, Wood, shortstop Iglesias the Reds dump around 49 million in payroll.

The 49 million is not all profit because Reds must resign Aquino, Senzel and Van Meter for the 2020 season. Reds however would be wise not to get carried away by their rookie seasons and sign them to Votto type contracts. The Reds are not the Yankees and must avoid 100 to 200 million contracts to just one player. It leaves little payroll for other players.

So there are players not to keep and players to keep.

Reds really have to trade most of Votto contract and dump Gausman, Galvis, Wood & Shortstop Iglesias and trim around 49 million from the budget. Then dig into the 49 million a little to keep Aquino, Van Meter and Senzel at not over paid contracts into next season.

Again, if they keep Votto they are not moving into the future and are locked into Last Place. Those who can't see this are too Old School Baseball not looking at the economics. If Votto continues to struggle at the plate or has a comeback season it doesn't matter either way, because Reds can't afford to spend this much money on one player.

To those who would cry to see him go, remember if the Reds can finish in Last with Votto, they can finish no worse than Last without Votto.

Trading Votto and most of his contract won't be easy, but that whole Bailey deal shows anything possible. Put everything into freeing up most of that 112.5 million and more they still have to pay him. Get out from under. This has nothing to do with homers or OBP. Dump his too high contract. It's easy to see Dodgers dumped payroll on Reds also, but all 1 year contracts the Reds got out of fast enough. Maybe the Reds can trade Votto for a bunch of high one year contracts and dump the one year guys just as fast again.

I don't expect man crush fans to understand the economics of this, but it is very simple. Reds are NOT the Yankees and not even close, and Reds can not afford this contract. It's that simple. The 5 year Votto contract is like a 5 year Last Place prison sentence.

There may be other player moves, but these are the main ones. Dump contracts of Votto, Gausman, Garvis, Wood, SS-Iglesias at a savings of 49 mil, and keep Aquino, Van Meter, Senzel at contracts Reds can afford. This should leave a a good chunk of the 49 million for other much needed player moves coming up.

The Reds should continue to look for players on the cheap. There is nothing wrong with getting a Scooter Gennett or SS like Iglesias for a year or so on the cheap. Reds need to keep their eye out for more discount department store deals like these. So what if the guy is only here a year or two while he plays his butt off to be worth more in free agency, that's to Reds advantage.

Votto won’t approve a trade unless the Reds tell him that he will be a platoon player if he stays. Ownership seems to kiss his rear so that’s not gonna happen. Let’s say that he does approve a trade... I think his actual contract is 25 Mil a year for the next 4 years and then a 7 Mil buyout in 2024. He will be 36 next year. Who would invest 4 years in him? How much would they take on each year? I’m guessing 8,7,5 and 5 with the Reds paying for the buyout year. That only gives the Reds 8, 7, 5 and 5 each year of extra money. They will have to eat the rest. So is Votto worth that 8,7,5 and 5 to the Reds to keep him? It would be nice if the Reds had a young power hitting first baseman in the minors ready to come up.

[samhain]

The Reds don't really have payroll problems. Even with Joey and after adding Bauer's money, they're going to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 55 mil to spend if they spend what they did in 2019, and Dick Williams has indicated that they will.

Joey is a thing they will have to manage. He either gets better, which I believe he's highly motivated to do, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, you have to be strong enough in other areas to compensate.

The staff was a disaster in 18. Now it looks like a major strength. Would anyone have predicted that? I think there's reason for optimism going into this offseason and 2020. I predict major activity and change on the roster this winter. 55 mil is plenty to add solid pen arms and a bat.

[kevin]

I'm going to go to the start of Money Ball movie as the new GM takes Jason Giambi and other stars off the board. The manager, coaches, scouts are all upset. The new GM says we can't afford Giambi, he is gone. That has to be Votto. Look high and low for a team to trade him to. Much like Giambi in this movie, Reds can't afford him, he is gone. That is the Money Ball move on rebuilding this always near Last Place team.

However I disagree with the Money Ball GM that took over Oakland A's in movie on 2 points. #1 is that the season is not a bust if you don't win the World Series. In fact Reds around 1st place around All-Star Game is good because you are giving the summer fans a reason to watch the Reds. That may be more important in July than who wins Halloween. #2 is keep stealing bases. This guy is too much of a throw back to old all white American League of no base stealing. The Negro Leagues and Jackie Robinson brought more base stealing to the game and it's a good thing. The 1970's Reds could steal bases, and Sparky even used the double steal a lot. So keep stealing bases.

On admitting that team can't afford a Giambi or in our case Votto, I do agree with the Money Ball guy on that, and it is not unlike Jack McKeon while with the Reds in 1999. Free up payroll to field a deeper team of 25 players.

[Circleville Guy]

(09-30-2019, 02:22 AM)kevin Wrote: I'm going to go to the start of Money Ball movie as the new GM takes Jason Giambi and other stars off the board. The manager, coaches, scouts are all upset. The new GM says we can't afford Giambi, he is gone. That has to be Votto. Look high and low for a team to trade him to. Much like Giambi in this movie, Reds can't afford him, he is gone. That is the Money Ball move on rebuilding this always near Last Place team.

However I disagree with the Money Ball GM that took over Oakland A's in movie on 2 points. #1 is that the season is not a bust if you don't win the World Series. In fact Reds around 1st place around All-Star Game is good because you are giving the summer fans a reason to watch the Reds. That may be more important in July than who wins Halloween. #2 is keep stealing bases. This guy is too much of a throw back to old all white American League of no base stealing. The Negro Leagues and Jackie Robinson brought more base stealing to the game and it's a good thing. The 1970's Reds could steal bases, and Sparky even used the double steal a lot. So keep stealing bases.

On admitting that team can't afford a Giambi or in our case Votto, I do agree with the Money Ball guy on that, and it is not unlike Jack McKeon while with the Reds in 1999. Free up payroll to field a deeper team of 25 players.

If I remember right, Giambi was a free agent that they decided not to resign that was coming off of a 30 homerun and 100 RBI season. Votto is already signed to a bad contract that other teams don’t want or would only take at pennies on the dollar. Like I said before, if you trade him then you’re not saving 25 million a year. You’re saving 5-8 Million and Votto has to okay the trade too.

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-30-2019, 11:01 AM)Circleville Guy Wrote: If I remember right, Giambi was a free agent that they decided not to resign that was coming off of a 30 homerun and 100 RBI season. Votto is already signed to a bad contract that other teams don’t want or would only take at pennies on the dollar. Like I said before, if you trade him then you’re not saving 25 million a year. You’re saving 5-8 Million and Votto has to okay the trade too.

Right

The only way Votto is going anywhere is 1. He has to agree to leave, he's already stated he's not. Could things change ? very doubtful

2. The Reds would have to continue to pay a large hunk of his salary. It's one in a million any team out there is going to roll the dice that a 36 year old clearly in decline, slow, fairly bad baserunning 1Bman is going to turn it around and pay most of his salary.

I won't say it's impossible, they got rid of Bailey, but highly, highly unlikely.

[Circleville Guy]

(09-30-2019, 11:10 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Right

The only way Votto is going anywhere is 1. He has to agree to leave, he's already stated he's not. Could things change ? very doubtful

2. The Reds would have to continue to pay a large hunk of his salary. It's one in a million any team out there is going to roll the dice that a 36 year old clearly in decline, slow, fairly bad baserunning 1Bman is going to turn it around and pay most of his salary.

I won't say it's impossible, they got rid of Bailey, but highly, highly unlikely.

I think that the reason that Votto doesn’t want traded is because he gets that failure in another city won’t be as kind as it is with the Reds. The owner and the fans don’t demand excellence here. He also knows that his starting role is safe because of how he played 3-4 years ago. Why would he want to give that up? He’s not accountable here! Another thing that I hate is that Votto never embraced a team leader role so he doesn’t even offer that in his declining years. I could see him hitting.300 one of the next 2 years but he’s probably not gonna hit more than 15 HRs or drive in more than 60 or 70. I see it playing out as fans disliking Votto by the time it’s over. Sacrificing a power position for half a decade isn’t a good plan.

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-30-2019, 01:40 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: I think that the reason that Votto doesn’t want traded is because he gets that failure in another city won’t be as kind as it is with the Reds. The owner and the fans don’t demand excellence here. He also knows that his starting role is safe because of how he played 3-4 years ago. Why would he want to give that up? He’s not accountable here! Another thing that I hate is that Votto never embraced a team leader role so he doesn’t even offer that in his declining years. I could see him hitting.300 one of the next 2 years but he’s probably not gonna hit more than 15 HRs or drive in more than 60 or 70. I see it playing out as fans disliking Votto by the time it’s over. Sacrificing a power position for half a decade isn’t a good plan.

Agree on all points except I'm not so sure he'll reach .300 again ? He's just not aggressive enough

[Circleville Guy]

It’s not that I think that he will hit .300 again but I wouldn’t be surprised. The reason that I say this is that I believe some of his problems are in his head. He really seems to over analyze everything, maybe relaxing could go a long way.

[nevergonnachange]

(09-30-2019, 05:59 PM)Circleville Guy Wrote: It’s not that I think that he will hit .300 again but I wouldn’t be surprised. The reason that I say this is that I believe some of his problems are in his head. He really seems to over analyze everything, maybe relaxing could go a long way.

He did say late in the year he was going to start 'hitting like a dumb dumb' and he improved.  Maybe he does just need to get out of his own head.

As others have said Votto cannot be traded unless he wants to go and he seems to love it here 

[Circleville Guy]

(10-01-2019, 08:28 AM)nevergonnachange Wrote: He did say late in the year he was going to start 'hitting like a dumb dumb' and he improved.  Maybe he does just need to get out of his own head.

As others have said Votto cannot be traded unless he wants to go and he seems to love it here 

I didn’t see the dumb dumb comment. Just for him to think that is kinda proof that he beats himself up mentally. Votto won’t be traded unless the Reds tell him that he will be a platoon player if he stays and the Reds won’t do that. Like I said, why would Votto want to leave? He’s treated like a king for past performance. They’re even afraid to drop him in the lineup.

[Yojimbo]

There is no salary cap, therefore the payroll can be whatever the team wants it to be. Castellini just has to open the wallet a little more if they need more money.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

The OP for this thread is pretty terrible. Sorry, Kevin, but....


1. Joey Votto has full no-trade protection, and even if he didn't, the same reasons why you want to get rid of him is the same reasons why nobody would want him even if he would agree to it. Lets say he does agree to it, you mentioned the Bailey contract, but he had ONE year left on his, not five like Votto. No team is trading for that unless the Reds throw in their top prospects too. Keep in mind that with the Bailey trade, the Reds only came out $7m ahead, and they had to give two guys who will be Top 100 prospects in 2020 to do it.

2. You mentioned multiple times the Reds must sign Aquino, Senzel, and Van Meter for 2020. They are ALL already under team control and will make somewhere around $580k in 2020 after making something like $545k or so in 2019. The Reds still control all three for 6 more years, 3 of those years in the $580-700k range. There is no signing required and the three combined will only cost about $105k more in 2020 than in 2019.

3. You can't "dump" guys who are no longer under contract (Wood, J Iglesias). They are free agents.

4. You keep mentioning they need all this money. For what? Have you looked at the free agent market for 2020? There's only a couple guys worth a damn offensively. Rendon is the big headliner, and the Nationals have offered him 7yr/$210m.

5. You said the Reds should keep looking for players on the cheap, but that just leads to more losing seasons, which is what I thought you wanted to avoid with this whole rant. You want to open up $50m in payroll, but not spend it on anybody good because you don't want $100m contracts being offered. Your plan would end up with the Reds having an ~$80-90m payroll, and Bob C banking tens of millions while the Reds win about 50 or 60 games. You need good players to win games, good players cost money or prospects. You don't want to spend the former, and the Reds don't have many of the latter.

[Yojimbo]

Here ya go:

We will have a bigger payroll,” Williams said on Wednesday in his office. “We will have money to spend. It will be a nice increase.”

https://www.mlb.com/reds/news/reds-payroll-growing-for-2020

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2019, 05:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 5.  You said the Reds should keep looking for players on the cheap, but that just leads to more losing seasons, which is what I thought you wanted to avoid with this whole rant. You want to open up $50m in payroll, but not spend it on anybody good because you don't want $100m contracts being offered. Your plan would end up with the Reds having an ~$80-90m payroll, and Bob C banking tens of millions while the Reds win about 50 or 60 games. You need good players to win games, good players cost money or prospects. You don't want to spend the former, and the Reds don't have many of the latter.

This.

If you keep dumping every player worthy of a good contract you end up being a consistent 90 loss farm team for the rest of the league.

I agree that we should trade Votto if we could, but it is not going to happen.  So people like you who obsess over Votto and claim we can never win with him might as well start looking for another team to root for.  His contract is a problem, but it will not make it impossible for us to win.