JohnU
Aristocratic Hoosier
Without reattaching my own ideas to this post, it maybe is useful to define "competitive" in pro sports.
The obvious definition is what happens on the field. In other aspects, it's what's happening in the bookkeeping department. So while I assume the Reds compete reasonably well with overall income, based on TV contracts, ad revenues, attendance ... value of lease, etc ... it brings me to this: The boom-bust part of sports is fairly typical, with the possible exception of the New England Patriots. Then again, maybe the Reds do NOT compete well in other areas. We only know what payroll is. It doesn't tell us that much.
But winning a W.S. one year, dropping to 3rd place the next ... that's not really a sin. The objective is to be a contender for something up to the last week or so of the season ... and to be in the conversation in February about whether the team is relevant.
It's been a VERY VERY VERY long time since I realized in the third week of May that the best I could hope for was taking 2 out of 3 from the Phillies.
The obvious definition is what happens on the field. In other aspects, it's what's happening in the bookkeeping department. So while I assume the Reds compete reasonably well with overall income, based on TV contracts, ad revenues, attendance ... value of lease, etc ... it brings me to this: The boom-bust part of sports is fairly typical, with the possible exception of the New England Patriots. Then again, maybe the Reds do NOT compete well in other areas. We only know what payroll is. It doesn't tell us that much.
But winning a W.S. one year, dropping to 3rd place the next ... that's not really a sin. The objective is to be a contender for something up to the last week or so of the season ... and to be in the conversation in February about whether the team is relevant.
It's been a VERY VERY VERY long time since I realized in the third week of May that the best I could hope for was taking 2 out of 3 from the Phillies.
Last edited: