CSNbbs

I guess people like these all-in-one threads so here is this year's model.

And despite some key departures, it surprisingly starts with (sort of) good news:

Vegas actually kinda likes the Reds (at least wrt the NL Central):

Quote:The consensus among oddsmakers is that the Reds are very slight favorites to win the division. The odds to win the National League Central via BetOnline:

Cincinnati Reds (9/4)

St. Louis Cardinals (5/2)

Chicago Cubs (11/4)

Milwaukee Brewers (13/4)

Pittsburgh Pirates (33/1)

...The Bovada sportsbook has the Reds tied with the Cardinals as divisional favorites (5-2), but they have the Reds a rung ahead of the Cardinals in their NL pennant and World Series odds (28-1).

...The odds to win the NL pennant via Bovada:

Dodgers (+225)

Padres (+400)

Braves (+500)

Mets (+550)

Reds (+1600)

Washington Nationals (+1800)

Cubs (+2000)

Cardinals (+2000)

Philadelphia Phillies (+2200)

Miami Marlins (+3000)

Brewers (+3000)

Arizona Diamondbacks (+5000)

Colorado Rockies (+6000)

San Francisco Giants (+6000)

Pirates (+10000)

Pat Morrow, the head oddsmaker at Bovada, says the Reds, with returning players such as Nick Castellanos, are considered to be underachievers last season and therefore good candidates for a rebound. "I think you look at the Reds and even though they had the offensive struggles that they did in the Wild Card Series, that wasn't truly indicative of their abilities," Morrow said. "I think when we look at the Cincinnati Reds, ultimately, they kind of underperformed.

"What often occurs in these small sample sizes in the playoffs is that even with Bauer missing that the sum of the parts is as such and that other opponents inside of the division have taken a bit of a step back that we expect them – they certainly are not a favorite or a runaway favorite – to be competitive in what we have to be a very wide-open division."

The downside (as the NL odds show) is that the whole division seems to be in various degrees of fire-sale mode.

It's getting close to decision time for quality SS and teams in the market for them and the teams seem to have more leverage. Perhaps nobody needs a SS more than the Reds (and perhaps the Phillies) and Didi Gregorius, Marcus Semien, Andrelton Simmons are all still on the market. If you see them as pretty even, there's a case to be made to be the second mover where you might find yourself as the only serious bidder for the other two. Further complicating things for those three SS is that next year is shaping up to have a bumper crop of high value free agent SSs. So taking a one year "prove it" deal hoping to make more money next season could backfire big time even if you put up good numbers (as it already has once for Didi this year).

The Athletic surveyed 9 talent evaluators and opinions varied (assumption was that each would get the exact same contract) as each of the 3 received at least one 1st place vote. But FWIW, they went with Didi first, followed by Semien and Simmons last as a pretty clear 1, 2 and 3 when forced to make a choice. Semien is arguably the biggest gamble but I think that's who I would target if I were the Reds. Although we seem to be getting everybody's downside offensively when they are in a Reds uniform, I think I'd still take a chance on Semien's upside. What say you?

Semien signs with Toronto for 1 year @ $18M. Kinda surprised he got that much tbh. (edit: apparently he held out for more $ from Toronto because they want him to play 2B.)

That leaves Simmons and DiDi out there with the Reds and Phils being the most obvious bidders. Phils just gave Realmuto a 5 year, $120M deal so they are probably feeling a major squeeze on their budget. I'm guessing since he ended last year with the Phils and hasn't resigned yet, that Didi must be very partial to a multi-year contract for more than the Phils can afford to pay. The Reds would prefer to keep it a short deal too most likely but I could see them stretching to a 2 year deal at least and/or being able to outbid the Phils. So if I had to guess, it will be Didi to the Reds and Simmons to the Phils.

Otherwise, Freddie Galvis () is still out there or we go looking again for a trade.

Simmons to the Twins and Galvis to the Orioles. At this rate I wouldn't be surprised to see Garcia at SS on Opening Day.

(01-26-2021 10:03 PM)InspectorHound Wrote: [ -> ]Simmons to the Twins and Galvis to the Orioles. At this rate I wouldn't be surprised to see Garcia at SS on Opening Day.

One year @ $10.5M for Simmons. Orioles seem to be stalking our ex SSs - they got a great year from Iglesias last year and now they've replaced him with Galvis for only $1.5M. I've seen it said that Didi wants $30M for a 2 year deal.

Didi to the Phillies on a two-year $18 million deal. That amount is less than expected. The top 3 off the board, and the Reds are empty handed. Also, others in the division making moves now that we're closer to Spring Training with the Arenado trade to the Cards. I'm sure we'll try to catch lightning in a bottle with a trade for some retread project and will get burned. I don't think we're the favorites in the NL Central anymore, and certainly not a threat to advance in the playoffs.

I'm sure Bob Castellini wants to win - just not enough to pay for a position of need. Objectively speaking, they have fallen behind the Bengals over the past twenty years. Time for Bob to sell.

(01-30-2021 01:51 PM)crex043 Wrote: [ -> ]Didi to the Phillies on a two-year $18 million deal. That amount is less than expected. The top 3 off the board, and the Reds are empty handed. Also, others in the division making moves now that we're closer to Spring Training with the Arenado trade to the Cards. I'm sure we'll try to catch lightning in a bottle with a trade for some retread project and will get burned. I don't think we're the favorites in the NL Central anymore, and certainly not a threat to advance in the playoffs.

I'm sure Bob Castellini wants to win - just not enough to pay for a position of need. Objectively speaking, they have fallen behind the Bengals over the past twenty years. Time for Bob to sell.

I saw $28M. Didi at your rate is a flat-out no-brainer for a team in the Reds' situation assuming they are actually committed to winning.
Still time to work out a trade (I'd be OK with Amed Rosario I guess) so I'll try to contain my anger/disappointment until the season starts. But this is shaping up as an ugly and depressing week for Reds fans.

Reds left standing with no spot to sit when the SS musical chairs tune stopped. Color me shocked.

(01-30-2021 02:19 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-30-2021 01:51 PM)crex043 Wrote: [ -> ]Didi to the Phillies on a two-year $18 million deal. That amount is less than expected. The top 3 off the board, and the Reds are empty handed. Also, others in the division making moves now that we're closer to Spring Training with the Arenado trade to the Cards. I'm sure we'll try to catch lightning in a bottle with a trade for some retread project and will get burned. I don't think we're the favorites in the NL Central anymore, and certainly not a threat to advance in the playoffs.

I'm sure Bob Castellini wants to win - just not enough to pay for a position of need. Objectively speaking, they have fallen behind the Bengals over the past twenty years. Time for Bob to sell.

I saw $28M. Didi at your rate is a flat-out no-brainer for a team in the Reds' situation assuming they are actually committed to winning.
Still time to work out a trade (I'd be OK with Amed Rosario I guess) so I'll try to contain my anger/disappointment until the season starts. But this is shaping up as an ugly and depressing week for Reds fans.

You're right, I meant to type $28 million. Still below what was expected as you said.

OT, but this seeems untenable

Bauer's deal is reportedly three years at $102 million. Let that sink in. Frankly, I'm surprised that something hasn't blown up yet in terms of either MLB instituting a salary cap or less revenues [tv/media, fan attendance/merchandise] to help drive down team payrolls. That said, there is a competitive balance tax [CBT] in place that has some minimal impact...

Quote:Here’s where the Dodgers’ 26-man payroll currently stands according to Cot’s Contracts: $242,689,000, blowing past the $210 million competitive balance tax threshold.

That’s not just the biggest payroll in MLB, it’s more than $50 million higher than the second-place New York Yankees. In fact, the distance between the Dodgers and Yankees is currently bigger than the one between the Yankees and 12th-placed Chicago Cubs, though those numbers could change as the offseason progresses.

Of course, those numbers are wild less because the Dodgers are entering uncharted payroll territory with and more because of how pretty much all of baseball’s biggest teams have started treating the competitive-balance tax as a de facto salary cap (exceeding the CBT threshold only results in a relatively small financial penalty, unlike the NBA and MLB).

My Advice - Play Professional Baseball, It Pays Well

(02-06-2021 08:55 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: [ -> ]Bauer's deal is reportedly three years at $102 million. Let that sink in. Frankly, I'm surprised that something hasn't blown up yet in terms of either MLB instituting a salary cap or less revenues [tv/media, fan attendance/merchandise] to help drive down team payrolls. That said, there is a competitive balance tax [CBT] in place that has some minimal impact...

Quote:Here’s where the Dodgers’ 26-man payroll currently stands according to Cot’s Contracts: $242,689,000, blowing past the $210 million competitive balance tax threshold.

That’s not just the biggest payroll in MLB, it’s more than $50 million higher than the second-place New York Yankees. In fact, the distance between the Dodgers and Yankees is currently bigger than the one between the Yankees and 12th-placed Chicago Cubs, though those numbers could change as the offseason progresses.

Of course, those numbers are wild less because the Dodgers are entering uncharted payroll territory with and more because of how pretty much all of baseball’s biggest teams have started treating the competitive-balance tax as a de facto salary cap (exceeding the CBT threshold only results in a relatively small financial penalty, unlike the NBA and MLB).

My Advice - Play Professional Baseball, It Pays Well

It is insane how much they make, heck in all professional sports. But people still buy tickets, so that likely won't change.

Plus the players association will never let them implement a salary cap. Maybe if they put in a high salary minimum as well they might consider it, but that number would probably have to be huge and would wind up costing owners even more money, probably more than half the teams currently spend. They would want something like $150 million min to make sure more players get bigger deals and the owners won't want that.

You know there's a problem in MLB when the Dodgers are going to set the league high in payroll at $242 million and the Pirates are at the league low of about $40 million. There's just something fundamentally wrong in that. I still believe it's only a matter of time until something occurs to balance things out more. I don't see how it can't with such a disparity.

I don't know how it breaks out across specific teams but the MLB attendance has been a steadily declining trend since the peak year of 2007. You wonder how COVID will impact 2021.

79,484,718 2007 Total Attendance
68,506,896 2019 Total Attendance

32,696 2007 Per Game Avg
28,203 2019 Per Game Avg

MLB Attendance

The other factor to consider is the trend for television/streaming viewership. I don't have those numbers but would be curious how that's shaken out. Obviously, neither of these have seemed to impact MLB payrolls of the top teams. Yet.

(02-06-2021 12:00 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: [ -> ]You know there's a problem in MLB when the Dodgers are going to set the league high in payroll at $242 million and the Pirates are at the league low of about $40 million. There's just something fundamentally wrong in that. I still believe it's only a matter of time until something occurs to balance things out more. I don't see how it can't with such a disparity.

I don't know how it breaks out across specific teams but the MLB attendance has been a steadily declining trend since the peak year of 2007. You wonder how COVID will impact 2021.

79,484,718 2007 Total Attendance
68,506,896 2019 Total Attendance

32,696 2007 Per Game Avg
28,203 2019 Per Game Avg

MLB Attendance

The other factor to consider is the trend for television/streaming viewership. I don't have those numbers but would be curious how that's shaken out. Obviously, neither of these have seemed to impact MLB payrolls of the top teams. Yet.

The Braves are owned by a publicly traded company, so we can tell generally how teams are doing financially. They are fine. None likely has cash flow problems, and all are seeing the value of their franchises increase without end. The Dodgers are not the problem here . . .

(02-06-2021 10:57 AM)BigDawg Wrote: [ -> ]Plus the players association will never let them implement a salary cap. Maybe if they put in a high salary minimum as well they might consider it, but that number would probably have to be huge and would wind up costing owners even more money, probably more than half the teams currently spend. They would want something like $150 million min to make sure more players get bigger deals and the owners won't want that.

(02-06-2021 12:00 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote: [ -> ]You know there's a problem in MLB when the Dodgers are going to set the league high in payroll at $242 million and the Pirates are at the league low of about $40 million. There's just something fundamentally wrong in that. I still believe it's only a matter of time until something occurs to balance things out more. I don't see how it can't with such a disparity.

I don't know how it breaks out across specific teams but the MLB attendance has been a steadily declining trend since the peak year of 2007. You wonder how COVID will impact 2021.

79,484,718 2007 Total Attendance
68,506,896 2019 Total Attendance

32,696 2007 Per Game Avg
28,203 2019 Per Game Avg

MLB Attendance

The other factor to consider is the trend for television/streaming viewership. I don't have those numbers but would be curious how that's shaken out. Obviously, neither of these have seemed to impact MLB payrolls of the top teams. Yet.

Thing is the owners have been murdering the players lately. Elite players like Bauer and Betts are getting paid but owners have caught up to the fact that return on investment for long term deals is terrible. The percentage of revenue going to player salaries is tanking and the players will be out for blood at the next collective bargaining agreement.

Im in complete agreement that you can't have a competitive sport when teams are spending 5x what lower payroll teams are but there's never been a less likely time to get any assistance from the players association. And you'll never have a salary floor because they can't get a floor without agreeing to a ceiling.

Other sports have a model where salaries have to meet a certain percentage of revenue; in reality that's probably what the players association needs to do.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2929...aight-year

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk

(02-06-2021 02:13 PM)RealDeal Wrote: [ -> ]Thing is the owners have been murdering the players lately. Elite players like Bauer and Betts are getting paid but owners have caught up to the fact that return on investment for long term deals is terrible. The percentage of revenue going to player salaries is tanking and the players will be out for blood at the next collective bargaining agreement.

Im in complete agreement that you can't have a competitive sport when teams are spending 5x what lower payroll teams are but there's never been a less likely time to get any assistance from the players association. And you'll never have a salary floor because they can't get a floor without agreeing to a ceiling.

There's little evidence that salary caps create more competitive leagues. Even anecdotally, the same teams dominate the NBA and the NFL year after year, while baseball has had a much more diverse group of champions over the last 20+ seasons.

Plus, there's already an effective salary cap when players are drafted.

It's all a fig leaf to keep salaries down. But fans see players getting paid so much and believe they are the problem and that the small-market billionaire owners just can't keep up with the Dodgers or the Yankees. It's depressing.

(02-06-2021 01:28 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]The Braves are owned by a publicly traded company, so we can tell generally how teams are doing financially. They are fine. None likely has cash flow problems, and all are seeing the value of their franchises increase without end. The Dodgers are not the problem here . . .

I never stated the Dodgers are the "problem." I pointed out the disparity between the highest payroll team and the lowest one. It's a difference of $200 million. If having a higher payroll didn't impact competitive advantage then why does it occur? That is a problem that MLB has created and left to fester.

(02-06-2021 04:12 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]There's little evidence that salary caps create more competitive leagues. Even anecdotally, the same teams dominate the NBA and the NFL year after year, while baseball has had a much more diverse group of champions over the last 20+ seasons.

There's two different issues here. The first is competitive advantage and the second is winning championships. I would argue in MLB, there is consistency in the higher payroll teams making the playoffs every year- especially the deeper runs. Of course there are outliers but the lower payroll teams don't sniff the postseason very often. In terms of chips, there is a diversity of winners in the salary capped NFL. Going back the last 11 Super Bowls: 2020 Chiefs; 2019 Patriots; 2018 Eagles; 2017 Patriots; 2016 Broncos; 2015 Patriots; 2014 Seahawks; 2013 Ravens; 2012 Giants; 2011 Packers; 2010 Saints. Only the Patriots won more than one SB in that time span [chalk that up to the GOAT Tom Brady] - the Pats won 3 and 8 other teams won one each. Four were from the AFC and five from the NFC. Seems pretty diverse to me.

(02-06-2021 04:12 PM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ]It's all a fig leaf to keep salaries down. But fans see players getting paid so much and believe they are the problem and that the small-market billionaire owners just can't keep up with the Dodgers or the Yankees. It's depressing.

You have brought up this issue in past threads. I'm not sure why you get defensive whenever anyone brings up the big money that players make. No one is denying that they shouldn't get paid well. No one is denying that owners who take the financial risks to own a franchise shouldn't make adequate profits. We are pointing out facts that show there is a major disparity in franchise payrolls. It's the idea that the other major sports leagues have managed to figure this out and it works.

Again, the problem with huge disparities in payrolls is that there are so many owners who refuse to spend the money required to compete. Of course lower payroll teams are worse. The solution isn't to cap salaries though.

I don't know how you can say that fans don't belive players are overpaid. I hear it all the time. And I absolutely do not care if owners make adequate profits, whatever that means. The Mets just sold for $2.5. Miami and KC both sold for over a billion each. Castellini is sitting on three-quarters of billion in appreciation, if he can't generate the cash flow to compete (which I do not believe) he has a lot of options.

I'm not suggesting a salary cap is the end all, be all or is the only option for MLB. They haven't done anything to address the situation with the exception of the minimal CBT. I would also say that no two owners are alike. They have different motivations and different philosophies on winning vs. turning a profit. They have different levels of wealth/financial capital and revenue sources. Some, like New York and Los Angeles, get an incredible advantage in television markets/money relative to markets like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, etc. But let's not act like the players are paupers in this mess and don't take advantage when they can. One just signed a $102 million deal over three years. Again, show me any other professional sports league where there is a $200 million payroll gap between the haves and have nots. There is none.