Reds payroll moving forward

[Hit-n-Run]

I think Homer has 3 years and a $25M mutual option for 2020. Hard to imagine the Reds will be picking up that option.

Phillips is in his last year at $14M and Mesoraco $13M in 2018.

IMO, Votto is the only current longterm deal that will be on the books when this team is ready to seriously contend for more than a second wildcard slot. I don't see the Reds returning to a 2010 type competitiveness until around 2020, so that renders a large portion of the current 25 man roster irrelevant if that is indeed the correct time frame.

Comparing the Reds situation to other teams is sometimes an apple to oranges comparison. For instance, the Indians were buyers ending with a higher payroll at seasons end. The Reds were sellers ending lower. By seasons end the difference was probably around 15%.

The Indians have 11 arbitration eligible players, the Reds only 4. The Indians are potentially facing the same problem that led to the Pirates decline this past season.

The Reds 4 arbitration eligible players this season: Cozart, Billy Hamilton, Tony Cingrani, Blake Wood. If all are retained you're talking about a minimal increase in payroll of $6M. Three of those names probably won't be around come 2018 and one or more might not be here come 2017 OD.

The biggest thing I read that seems to be misunderstood is the Reds payroll. The percentage of available revenue the Reds are going to spend hasn't changed. The MLB payroll isn't reflective of what the Reds current spending strategy is. Fans see the Reds posted MLB payroll and assume the team is losing cheaper. That's simply not true. The Reds are spending the same, but the allocation of the spending has changed. The most obvious example being talent acquisition. In 2015 the Reds spent around $10M in the rule 4 draft and International signings. In 2016 that number has grown to over $30M.

 

[JohnU]

I think the payroll debate has gone completely off the rails. A big-league baseball team is mostly compelled to keep big-league players on the roster and pay them big-league wages. That's a part of the collusion question that the MLBPA fought over. You can't have 25 guys on the team earning league minimum.

I do think the Reds will throw some serious dollars at Billy Hamilton and they might be willing to long-term a couple of their pitchers, though I don't think one of them would be Iglesias.

Mark Sheldon threw out these names for potential free-agent signings. I went for the Pepto.

Williams did not specify exactly who the Reds might pursue or what they are willing to spend. Some of the veteran mid-range free-agent relievers on the market are right-handers Joe Blanton, Joba Chamberlain, Bud Norris and Drew Storen and left-handers Brett Cecil, Marc Rzepczynski and Boone Logan.

I'd buy into Travis Wood again. He can start or do long relief.

Seriously, the players that take the field every day for Cincy CAN contend for a division. I agree the window to contend is not until they can safely say they have 3 serious rotation guys who can get "ace" money.

Tim Adleman might be the best value they ever got.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

I think MLB teams are compelled to operate within their individual clubs means as set by their investors. Fans are customers, not investors. It's the goal of the FO to keep both happy, easier said than done when you're limited by elements outside of your control.


The disparity in revenue from team to team is wide, but the competitiveness within the leagues is not always reflectIive of that divide. Often the more teams spend to hang onto past team control players, the less competitive they become. The Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton type signings that cripple even the wealthier teams.

Statistics show that younger players are more productive and naturally cost less. The data shows that players are peaking at 26, so why sign players at age 28 to a longterm deal?

 

[JohnU]

And as we know, the Cardinals NOT signing Pujols allowed them to spend money on more players who turned out to be more productive.

Cincy has naturally made a couple of interesting deals -- if you count what they may still owe Junior. I remember a $45M deal they made to get Coco Cordero. Let's hope we never see that again.

I think, though, when the team spits out contracts like they did for Ryan Ludwick, it shows there's a disconnect between what the player is expected to produce and what the fans are expected to believe he will produce.

We can mostly agree that the contract for Chapman was worth it, and could still have been had the Reds won anything. Chapman is an enigma, of course. Perfect mechanics and awesome talent. If he gets signed by the Cardinals, who can afford him, the balance of power shifts a little in the NL-C.

Different topic, that.

Given the nature of the sports injury regimen today, one wonders exactly how ANY team is supposed to approach free agency negotiations. Who wants a Zach Greinke albatross? Meanwhile, the Cubs just sort of got lucky. Unless you count Jason Heyward.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

What is lost in the Pujols/ Cardinals scenario is that the Cardinals offered Pujols a $200M+ longterm deal. Pujols snubbed the Cardinals over hurt feelings from the intial lower offer. So the Cardinals were trying to make the same mistake as other clubs, but were saved by the way they mishandled Pujols ego.

It was interesting to see Jason Heyward snub the Cards this past offseason as well. The Cardinals mystique seems to have loss some of it's sheen.

When looking at the Ludwick signing, most of the discourse seemed to stem from opinions he was overpaid. A lot of it misrepresented the actual contractual dollar amounts. Ludwick signed twice for a total of 3 years and an option year/ buyout for $17M. That's 2nd tier money for a 2nd tier free agent. Once he blew out his shoulder the second season there was never going to be any real value to production type performance. It's the same thing we're seeing with the Devon Mesoraco contract.

 

[JohnU]

What is lost in the Pujols/ Cardinals scenario is that the Cardinals offered Pujols a $200M+ longterm deal. Pujols snubbed the Cardinals over hurt feelings from the intial lower offer. So the Cardinals were trying to make the same mistake as other clubs, but were saved by the way they mishandled Pujols ego.

I had forgotten this. Thanks for the refresher.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Everyone has a budget=MLB teams too. Lots of ways to spend it, but few sources of income...some fans think the Reds (or any team) can spend whatever they want or need to contend, but it simply isn' so. It's a business, and the MLB payroll is a large piece of the expense report. The Reds do equate attendance to budget, and at present and presumed 2017 numbers, the Reds are over budget at just north of $100 M.

We've all done the math. Hindsight is 20:20, but spending a long term contract on players that immediately are hurt for a couple years looks as bad to stakeholders as fans...who are more customers than stakeholders, IMO. Customers will drop off...I'm one of them this year that won't renew ticket packages.

Top players like Pujols (and Votto) at the time, were (and still are) are pressured by the Players Union to push up the max salary envelope, and both got "market contracts"...that doesn't mean if the market price for a Lamborghini is $500K, that I can afford one, or that $450K is a "deal" I can afford either. I think the Reds budget is too thin to afford to pay 3-4 players half the $100M payroll. I don't know the answer, but I do know chances of winning paying a dozen guys $2M or less is near zero.

As ALL the Reds LTC players can attest, they almost ALL get injured for at least a time during the deal. All the risk is on the team. PLayers get paid regardless. MLB will need some type of restructured salary or payroll limit in order for small market teams to be on equal ground again. Current Revenue sharing and luxury tax is a token gesture simply to address investment risk, not winning.

 

[JohnU]

Obviously the players union doesn't include "winning" in the discussion aside from what the players achieve on their own. But the Chapman signing illustrates in bold letters what's wrong with the system. The Yanks can afford to pay a premium closer that kind of money because they have a lot extra to pay other players.

The sad fact is that since the smaller markets all know this, they panic and play "let's win now" and sign their hoss to a zillion-dollar deal and hope somebody from the minors matures early enough to play the other positions that they can't afford to fill.

Seriously though, inside the NL-C, the only team that is truly stronger than the Reds is the Cubs, and yes ... I include St. Louis in that group. The variable there is pitching. Of course, positions evaluated, all teams are better at one spot than another, unless anybody thinks Martin Maldonado is better than Yadi Molina.

This is turning the topic into a new tangent but one wonders if the Cards and Parrots really are getting ready to rebuild and if so, do they do it the conventional way? I think St. Louis might be quicker to fix their age issues. Pittsburgh may go back to lamenting again pretty soon. I think their ship sailed.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

I would agree attendance revenue makes up a larger % of a small market team's income. The larger markets generally have higher attendance revenue, but it would account for a lower % of the total based on a much higher % of local TV revenue. It's why we're seeing more and more local TV deals that include equity stakes. Equity stakes are not subject to revenue sharing.

Attendance used to be a much higher % of revenue, but the % of total income related to attendance has dropped significantly. In 2009, attendance revenue was 38% of the MLB gross revenue. In 2015, that number has dipped to 28%. It's not representative of decreased attendance, it demonstrates a big increase in revenue not associated with butts in the seats.

 

[JohnU]

Attendance tends to create a bit of an eye test for potential advertisers. Lots of empty seats is a lot fewer potential customers. I don't know the formula for all that but an advertising dollar in Wrigley is worth a lot more than one at MortgagesRUs for the White Sox.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

There's no doubt the intended outcome is for as many people to see your add as possible. The more people projected to view it, the more the advertiser will pay.

But with as many ways to follow your favorite team and buying tickets being the most expensive, I think advertisers realize they get more views for their buck through eyes on the screen.... TV screens and the ones hand held.

 

[JohnU]

Agreed, streaming video has transformed the whole process. They watch a game live on a Tibetan hillside now. Not much need for a Nissan Pathfinder there but ... hey, a Snickers bar would hit the spot!

 

[Redsfan1507]

A wise man once told me that money isn't everything, but it does make all bad things better.

There is too much money in baseball. IMO, It makes mediocre baseball a lot easier to "settle" for...for players, staff, owners, agents, and maybe even some fans...especially the ones in the diamond seats