Reds nearing extension with Votto

[Sammy Sofa]

It's like some people are expecting another team to inexplicably fire the next David Ortiz for the Cubs to swoop in on, but no way in hell should they also go out and spend money on a Manny Ramirez.

 

There's plenty of room to be willing for the Cubs to spend big on a free agent, and also be critical of the mid-market Reds for signing Votto to market value through age 40 when he's still 2 years from free agency.

 

Their payroll isn't inflexible.

[Guest]

It's like some people are expecting another team to inexplicably fire the next David Ortiz for the Cubs to swoop in on, but no way in hell should they also go out and spend money on a Manny Ramirez.

 

There's plenty of room to be willing for the Cubs to spend big on a free agent, and also be critical of the mid-market Reds for signing Votto to market value through age 40 when he's still 2 years from free agency.

 

Their payroll isn't inflexible.

 

It's not going to remain static, but they aren't going to be in the top half of teams in terms of payroll, and in a media market that barely cracks the top 30, there isn't exactly a ton of untapped revenue potential. They have payroll constraints greater than that of a large market team, and as such, it's incredibly risky to make such an investment when he's this far from free agency.

[Sammy Sofa]

Maybe. I'm still jealous.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How much of those massive new local cable deals that everyone seems to be getting will go into revenue sharing?

 

Not to mention the new CBA forcing more money into the major-league payrolls.

 

It looks like we're just going to enter another inflation era of contracts and have to adjust our expectations accordingly.`

[Guest]

How much of those massive new local cable deals that everyone seems to be getting will go into revenue sharing?

 

Not to mention the new CBA forcing more money into the major-league payrolls.

 

It looks like we're just going to enter another inflation era of contracts and have to adjust our expectations accordingly.`

 

It's not really the dollars, it's the length. Votto's deal is much better if it ripped up his current deal, or if it was only 6-7 years on top of the next two years. Even if it was a higher AAV.

[dew1679666265]

How much of those massive new local cable deals that everyone seems to be getting will go into revenue sharing?

 

Not to mention the new CBA forcing more money into the major-league payrolls.

 

It looks like we're just going to enter another inflation era of contracts and have to adjust our expectations accordingly.`

 

It's not really the dollars, it's the length. Votto's deal is much better if it ripped up his current deal, or if it was only 6-7 years on top of the next two years. Even if it was a higher AAV.

 

Yeah, I liked it a lot better when I thought it began this season. I still think it's a reasonable price for a guy like Votto, but I do question whether it was a deal the Reds can afford. Basically, it'd be a great deal if a major market team like the Cubs signed him to it, but it's pretty questionable for a mid-market team like the Reds.

[CubColtPacer]

2) This deal averages 27.5% of the Reds payroll for 2012. The payroll will likely rise a little over time, but that's still a huge percentage to give to any one player, especially when you have little flexibility to get out of it if things go poorly.

 

3) The contract is already highly questionable to begin with if the Reds only options were to extend him or let him go to free agency. When you consider how much they could have gotten if they traded him, it becomes crazy. The pieces they would get and the payroll flexibility they would have would have a very high chance of being worth more than Votto alone.

 

What do you mean it averages 27.5% of the 2012 payroll? It only accounts for a percentage of the 2012 payroll once. It's pretty clear with all the money that most non-Cubs teams are willing to spend on players that money is expected to be there to afford all these players. Cincy's current payroll is roughly double what it was 7 years ago. If it doubles again that percentage will plummet.

 

The obsession with payroll flexibility really confuses me. I would much rather have really good players than the flexibility to sign mediocrity.

 

 

The Reds are closer to median payroll now than they were in 2004 which was the last time they were down that low. There isn't as much room for them to grow anymore, so they are dependent on MLB growing salaries across the board. I used the 2012 number because that's the only payroll number we know as of the moment so that served as a baseline. Obviously as I mentioned that percentage will go down as the payroll increases, but I would be stunned if there payroll was double or really anywhere close in the next 7-10 years.

 

Payroll flexibility has to be balanced with the scarcity of playing time. For the Cubs, playing time is more scarce then money, so signing stars to that sort of deal makes sense. For the Reds, payroll flexibility is a big deal. They'll have some difficulty surrounding him in the early years because of how much his salary is, and in the later years he'll decline. That's a big problem. It's an even bigger one when they could trade him and get major assets back for him from a team who doesn't have to be as concerned by the financials.

[treebird]

2) This deal averages 27.5% of the Reds payroll for 2012. The payroll will likely rise a little over time, but that's still a huge percentage to give to any one player, especially when you have little flexibility to get out of it if things go poorly.

 

3) The contract is already highly questionable to begin with if the Reds only options were to extend him or let him go to free agency. When you consider how much they could have gotten if they traded him, it becomes crazy. The pieces they would get and the payroll flexibility they would have would have a very high chance of being worth more than Votto alone.

 

What do you mean it averages 27.5% of the 2012 payroll? It only accounts for a percentage of the 2012 payroll once. It's pretty clear with all the money that most non-Cubs teams are willing to spend on players that money is expected to be there to afford all these players. Cincy's current payroll is roughly double what it was 7 years ago. If it doubles again that percentage will plummet.

 

The obsession with payroll flexibility really confuses me. I would much rather have really good players than the flexibility to sign mediocrity.

 

 

The Reds are closer to median payroll now than they were in 2004 which was the last time they were down that low. There isn't as much room for them to grow anymore, so they are dependent on MLB growing salaries across the board. I used the 2012 number because that's the only payroll number we know as of the moment so that served as a baseline. Obviously as I mentioned that percentage will go down as the payroll increases, but I would be stunned if there payroll was double or really anywhere close in the next 7-10 years.

 

Payroll flexibility has to be balanced with the scarcity of playing time. For the Cubs, playing time is more scarce then money, so signing stars to that sort of deal makes sense. For the Reds, payroll flexibility is a big deal. They'll have some difficulty surrounding him in the early years because of how much his salary is, and in the later years he'll decline. That's a big problem. It's an even bigger one when they could trade him and get major assets back for him from a team who doesn't have to be as concerned by the financials.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/11/more-scary-news-on-tv-front-for-reds/?odyssey=obinsite

 

the reds current tv deal is a joke, it's not unreasonable to think they'll be right there along with everyone else and get a real deal that allows them to significantly up the payroll in a few years.

[SouthSideRyan]

2) This deal averages 27.5% of the Reds payroll for 2012. The payroll will likely rise a little over time, but that's still a huge percentage to give to any one player, especially when you have little flexibility to get out of it if things go poorly.

 

3) The contract is already highly questionable to begin with if the Reds only options were to extend him or let him go to free agency. When you consider how much they could have gotten if they traded him, it becomes crazy. The pieces they would get and the payroll flexibility they would have would have a very high chance of being worth more than Votto alone.

 

What do you mean it averages 27.5% of the 2012 payroll? It only accounts for a percentage of the 2012 payroll once. It's pretty clear with all the money that most non-Cubs teams are willing to spend on players that money is expected to be there to afford all these players. Cincy's current payroll is roughly double what it was 7 years ago. If it doubles again that percentage will plummet.

 

The obsession with payroll flexibility really confuses me. I would much rather have really good players than the flexibility to sign mediocrity.

 

 

The Reds are closer to median payroll now than they were in 2004 which was the last time they were down that low. There isn't as much room for them to grow anymore, so they are dependent on MLB growing salaries across the board. I used the 2012 number because that's the only payroll number we know as of the moment so that served as a baseline. Obviously as I mentioned that percentage will go down as the payroll increases, but I would be stunned if there payroll was double or really anywhere close in the next 7-10 years.

 

Payroll flexibility has to be balanced with the scarcity of playing time. For the Cubs, playing time is more scarce then money, so signing stars to that sort of deal makes sense. For the Reds, payroll flexibility is a big deal. They'll have some difficulty surrounding him in the early years because of how much his salary is, and in the later years he'll decline. That's a big problem. It's an even bigger one when they could trade him and get major assets back for him from a team who doesn't have to be as concerned by the financials.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/11/more-scary-news-on-tv-front-for-reds/?odyssey=obinsite

 

the reds current tv deal is a joke, it's not unreasonable to think they'll be right there along with everyone else and get a real deal that allows them to significantly up the payroll in a few years.

 

Is the potential for TV deals really that significant for cities with one sports network and no ability to form their own? Obviously they'll get an increase thanks to the huge increase in demand for live programming, but it's not like they have a lot of leverage.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is the potential for TV deals really that significant for cities with one sports network and no ability to form their own? Obviously they'll get an increase thanks to the huge increase in demand for live programming, but it's not like they have a lot of leverage.

 

The trend has been that content is king in the entertainment world, and sports is about the most desired content out there. I would say the potential for TV deals across the board is huge.

[SouthSideRyan]

Is the potential for TV deals really that significant for cities with one sports network and no ability to form their own? Obviously they'll get an increase thanks to the huge increase in demand for live programming, but it's not like they have a lot of leverage.

 

The trend has been that content is king in the entertainment world, and sports is about the most desired content out there. I would say the potential for TV deals across the board is huge.

 

But if FSN Ohio(or wherever the [expletive] they are) says well we'll give you this for local broadcast rights, where does Cincy turn to get a better offer?

[J.R.]

It's not hard to start an RSN. Everything that sustains the Cincinnati arm of Fox Sports Ohio could be brought together under another banner if the deal is right.

 

College sports are very strong in Cincinnati, and you could conceivably survive on college basketball (UC or Xavier, select UK games) from November through the start of spring training.

 

The Reds had to do this. They had a dominant regional brand at the end of the 1970s, and thanks to horrendous ownership blew it a little at time over the next 30 years. Current ownership is cognizant of the fact that they have fallen behind the horribly run Bengals and Ohio State football, and is trying to restore the franchise to the point that they could sustain their own RSN or command big fees from someone else.

 

The meathead sports radio callers (a formidable constituency in a town where the big AM talker - 700 WLW - is a driver of opinion many orders stronger than any local TV outlet or newspaper) staked their legitimacy on the supposed fact that ownership wouldn't pony up for Votto. Now they will have to find something else to complain about.

[SouthSideRyan]

College basketball contracts are negotiated through the conference. A Reds network couldn't broadcast any of those teams.

[Little Slide Rooter]

It seems as though the trend these days is locking up young stars trough the bulk of their prime. This being said, I'm starting to wonder if we should have jumped on Fielder because who knows when another elite player is going to hit free agency. Kemp, Cain, and now Votto were all future free agent targets, and I'll be very surprised if the Phillies let Hamels get away, and I doubt that theres anyone who's going to outbid the Yankees on Cano.

[dew1679666265]

It seems as though the trend these days is locking up young stars trough the bulk of their prime. This being said, I'm starting to wonder if we should have jumped on Fielder because who knows when another elite player is going to hit free agency. Kemp, Cain, and now Votto were all future free agent targets, and I'll be very surprised if the Phillies let Hamels get away, and I doubt that theres anyone who's going to outbid the Yankees on Cano.

 

I agree that we should have made a move for one of the elite FAs, but Prince would have been the wrong target. That contract is an albatross from day one and while he has an elite offensive skillset, he's not an overall elite player. Ponying up for Pujols or Darvish would have been a much, much better option and is the route we should have taken.

 

Chances are at this point if we want an elite player (outside of Starlin), we'll either have to wait 4-5 years for one to develop or pay a massive premium in minor league talent and in money to acquire one.

[J.R.]

College basketball contracts are negotiated through the conference. A Reds network couldn't broadcast any of those teams.

 

They (UK at least) have pre-conference games that are marketed independently.

[woodchip2153]

this seems like a relevant place for this article from The Hardball Times

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/free-agent-value-and-building-teams-from-within1/

[J.R.]

2014: $12 million

2015: $14 million

2016: $20 million

2017: $22 million

2018-23: $25 million per year

2024: $20 million team option with $7 million buyout

 

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/04/joey-vottos-deal-includes-a-20-million-option-for-2024/

[Clem Fandango]

Somewhere else mentioned that Brandon Phillips will likely be released into free agency instead of extended because of it. Not interested in the Cubs pursuing him, but thought it was a mildly intriguing MLB storyline

 

Well apparently the Reds aren't going to let that happen...

 

According to Jim Bowden of ESPN.com and MLB Network Radio on Sirius XM, the Reds have offered Brandon Phillips a five-year contract in the "neigborhood" of $62.5-65 million.

In other words, the deal would exceed Dan Uggla's five-year, $62 million extension with the Braves from last offseason. Ian Kinsler is reportedly discussing a five-year, $70 million extension with the Rangers, but it's worth noting that he is one year younger than Phillips. Reds general manager Walt Jocketty expressed confidence Thursday that a deal could get done with Phillips within a week, though there is no specific timetable. The 30-year-old is due to become a free agent after this season.