AA club ? doubt it

[*bengalfan74*]

The Reds have the next to worst team batting average in MLB .177. The worst OBP .247. Tied for the most strikeouts - 129. The worst slugging % .277. And to make matters worse their team ERA is the next to worst in MLB 5.92.

I'm with TecmoBengals, not even sure this would be a good AA club ? Is Bod Castellini tanking ? Can you do that in Baseball ?

And now there's this: https://www.sportscasting.com/cincinnati-reds-nick-castellanos-reportedly-wanted-return-but-owner-bob-castellini-chose-another-plan/

[*ochocincos*]

(04-21-2022, 10:39 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: The Reds have the next to worst team batting average in MLB .177. The worst OBP .247. Tied for the most strikeouts - 129. The worst slugging % .277. And to make matters worse their team ERA is the next to worst in MLB 5.92.

I'm with TecmoBengals, not even sure this would be a good AA club ? Is Bod Castellini tanking ? Can you do that in Baseball ?

And now there's this: https://www.sportscasting.com/cincinnati-reds-nick-castellanos-reportedly-wanted-return-but-owner-bob-castellini-chose-another-plan/

Tanking doesn't really have much of a benefit in baseball, TBH.
Draft picks don't play for years in the majors.

It comes down to money.
Reds only allow so much of a payroll, and they basically give the reason that they don't spend more because they aren't making more.
The Castellinis seem to be ok with having a reduced payroll for ~5 years then will spend bigger for ~2 years. Rinse, repeat.

They tried to BS that they aren't trying to have a reduced payroll and will still be competitive this year because they know that they will have fewer people at games if they don't give the perception they're at least trying. And obviously fewer people going to games means less revenue.

The Reds also are not as good as some of the other lower-payroll teams like the Rays who are great at getting in minor league talent and developing that talent. Reds may eventually get (back) to that point, but that takes multiple years to build up.

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-21-2022, 12:55 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Tanking doesn't really have much of a benefit in baseball, TBH.
Draft picks don't play for years in the majors.

It comes down to money.
Reds only allow so much of a payroll, and they basically give the reason that they don't spend more because they aren't making more.
The Castellinis seem to be ok with having a reduced payroll for ~5 years then will spend bigger for ~2 years. Rinse, repeat.

They tried to BS that they aren't trying to have a reduced payroll and will still be competitive this year because they know that they will have fewer people at games if they don't give the perception they're at least trying. And obviously fewer people going to games means less revenue.

The Reds also are not as good as some of the other lower-payroll teams like the Rays who are great at getting in minor league talent and developing that talent. Reds may eventually get (back) to that point, but that takes multiple years to build up.

Oh I was teasing about the tanking.

And I get it, Reds are a small market team. They just can't compete with the big boys year in and year out. Which BTW is one of the bigger reasons baseball sucks, but that's another topic.

But for crying out loud ! Castellini has had 3 competitive seasons out of 16. 2010, 2012, and 2013. And got basically rocked in every post season of those years. His average wins per season besides those 3 seasons (threw out 2020 because of only 60 games) is 73.

Here's the statement he made when he took over the team "We're buying the Reds to win. Anything else is unacceptable," We're into the 9th season since 2013. I mean you have to be able to eek out a contender even in small markets in 9 seasons.

[guyofthetiger]

The rebuild isn't working. I say bring up the AA players and see if they do better. BTW ticket prices should be extremely low this year.

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-21-2022, 09:21 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: The rebuild isn't working. I say bring up the AA players and see if they do better. BTW ticket prices should be extremely low this year.

Yes at least bringing up the minor leaguers would be something to watch.

[TecmoBengals]

It does suck that in baseball you can't get too excited about a #1 pick. a Griffey Jr., Arod, or Harper lock of a talent at #1 just isn't a sure-thing in the game that often.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-21-2022, 09:51 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Yes at least bringing up the minor leaguers would be something to watch.

They've brought up many minor leaguers the past few years.

Aquino, Senzel, India, Stephenson, Barrero.
Greene, Lodolo, Santillan, Sanmartin, Gutierrez, Antone.

Only a few of these guys have panned out so far.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-22-2022, 09:19 AM)TecmoBengals Wrote: It does suck that in baseball you can't get too excited about a #1 pick. a Griffey Jr., Arod, or Harper lock of a talent at #1 just isn't a sure-thing in the game that often.

Trevor Lawrence
Baker Mayfield
Jared Goff
Jameis Winston
Jadeveon Clowney
Sam Bradford
JaMarcus Russell
Alex Smith
David Carr
Carson Palmer
Courtney Brown

That's just since 2000. There's been plenty of bad 1st overall picks (not saying those guys are all bad players at all, but as 1st overall picks they were letdowns).

Honestly MLB has probably as good of a record with 1st overalls as the NFL since 2000 which is even more impressive because they don't generally start in the majors.

[TecmoBengals]

(04-22-2022, 06:59 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Trevor Lawrence
Baker Mayfield
Jared Goff
Jameis Winston
Jadeveon Clowney
Sam Bradford
JaMarcus Russell
Alex Smith
David Carr
Carson Palmer
Courtney Brown

That's just since 2000. There's been plenty of bad 1st overall picks (not saying those guys are all bad players at all, but as 1st overall picks they were letdowns).

Honestly MLB has probably as good of a record with 1st overalls as the NFL since 2000 which is even more impressive because they don't generally start in the majors.

There are talented MLB first picks that experience success, but not all of them are generational talents. Obviously, it's also harder for one player to have a significant influence on the outcome of a game compared to the NFL or NBA. As you noted, first round MLBers also don't start in the big leagues so even drafting a good talent doesn't have an immediate payout for the big league team.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-23-2022, 10:41 AM)TecmoBengals Wrote: There are talented MLB first picks that experience success, but not all of them are generational talents. Obviously, it's also harder for one player to have a significant influence on the outcome of a game compared to the NFL or NBA. As you noted, first round MLBers also don't start in the big leagues so even drafting a good talent doesn't have an immediate payout for the big league team.

At the risk of sounding pedantic... desn't the phrase generational talent explicitly exclude everyone from being one?  If all the 1st overall picks were one, that wouldn't be generational, that would be annual, which wouldn't be anything special.

Heck, there were like 6 guys last year in the NFL draft who would probably have each been the #1 pick in this draft. Sometimes drafts just have more talent than others.

Imagine NFL drafting if a lot of the players were 17-18 rather than 22. That's a pretty. Important age distinction for physical development.

[TecmoBengals]

(04-23-2022, 11:02 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: At the risk of sounding pedantic... desn't the phrase generational talent explicitly exclude everyone from being one?  If all the 1st overall picks were one, that wouldn't be generational, that would be annual, which wouldn't be anything special.

Heck, there were like 6 guys last year in the NFL draft who would probably have each been the #1 pick in this draft. Sometimes drafts just have more talent than others.

Imagine NFL drafting if a lot of the players were 17-18 rather than 22. That's a pretty. Important age distinction for physical development.

No worries about being pedantic at all, I understand your perspective. Overall, the Reds suck and I don't know if the 2023 #1 pick (if we land it) is enough to help this bad organization. If it had a Griffey Jr. or Harper talent, it might add to my optimisim.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-23-2022, 11:10 AM)TecmoBengals Wrote: No worries about being pedantic at all, I understand your perspective. Overall, the Reds suck and I don't know if the 2023 #1 pick (if we land it) is enough to help this bad organization. If it had a Griffey Jr. or Harper talent, it might add to my optimisim.

Oh, 100% agreement. The Reds suck and the #1 overall pick (which they probably won't land, the MLB is starting a draft lottery in 2023, so they will have somewhere between the 1st and 7th picks if they're the worst team in baseball) and even if they had a Griffey Jr or Harper, ownership would find a way to screw it up. Just look at Votto. Future Hall of Famer, has been a Red for 16 years, the Reds have been to the postseason just 3 times (I don't count 1 game wildcards as the postseason, that's a play-in game) and one of those 3 were expanded playoffs in a shortened season with a 31-29 record. Zero playoff series wins.

Don't even get me started on what the Angels have done with Mike Trout's career over there in LA. Lol

I guess what I am trying to get at is that as long as you have an awful owner, it's going to be near impossible to win regardless of generational talents. That is regardless of sport. It took Mike Brown starting to GTFOutta the way for the Bengals to finally sign talent in FA and win some playoff games. Sell the team Bob.

[fredtoast]

Even if you draft the next Ken Griffey Jr one player just will not have the same impact in MLB as it can in the NBA or with a QB in the NFL.

Does the MLB still have the "competitive balance" extra picks? Didn't the Reds qualify for those?

[TecmoBengals]

(04-23-2022, 01:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Even if you draft the next Ken Griffey Jr one player just will not have the same impact in MLB as it can in the NBA or with a QB in the NFL.

Does the MLB still have the "competitive balance" extra picks?  Didn't the Reds qualify for those?

Correct, it's why I posted earlier in the thread:

Quote:Obviously, it's also harder for one player to have a significant influence on the outcome of a game compared to the NFL or NBA. 

[*bengalfan74*]

(04-23-2022, 11:23 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Oh, 100% agreement. The Reds suck and the #1 overall pick (which they probably won't land, the MLB is starting a draft lottery in 2023, so they will have somewhere between the 1st and 7th picks if they're the worst team in baseball) and even if they had a Griffey Jr or Harper, ownership would find a way to screw it up. Just look at Votto. Future Hall of Famer, has been a Red for 16 years, the Reds have been to the postseason just 3 times (I don't count 1 game wildcards as the postseason, that's a play-in game) and one of those 3 were expanded playoffs in a shortened season with a 31-29 record. Zero playoff series wins.

Don't even get me started on what the Angels have done with Mike Trout's career over there in LA. Lol

I guess what I am trying to get at is that as long as you have an awful owner, it's going to be near impossible to win regardless of generational talents. That is regardless of sport. It took Mike Brown starting to GTFOutta the way for the Bengals to finally sign talent in FA and win some playoff games. Sell the team Bob.

Please

If This team drafted the next Ken Griffey Jr. Johnny Bench, Nolan Ryan, and Greg Maddux, insert whoever's names. Yes they'd find a way to jack it up. I'm a firm believer that Bob and Co. have to go before there's any hope.