difference between Reds and Bengals is economics

difference between Reds and Bengals is economics

Joined: December 31st, 2012, 4:43 pm

October 15th, 2017, 7:24 pm #1

In any case it's not really fair to compare the Reds' failures (which are numerous) to the Bengals.

Could the Reds be a better-run organization? Yes, they could put more emphasis on analytics -- which would mean they would stop trying to hit Billy Hamilton leadoff -- and they could have given their young pitchers more starts this season to see if any of them would pitch their way out of sucking. Fundamentally there's a limit as to how much the Reds can compete when their maximum payroll is gonna be less than half of other teams. This year some of the playoff teams made ridiculous acquisitions... the kind of stuff that Bowie Kuhn disallowed when the Reds did it in 1977 . The Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc can all afford not only to sign guys in the offseason to huge contracts but if they happen to be threatening to win the World Series they can make in-season deals to take on huge piles of salary. It's hard to figure how the Reds can overcome that and certainly not to build a dynasty.

The Bungs are in a league that is absolutely fair on payroll. They have only themselves to blame.
===============================================
1991-2017 the putrid reign of Mikey Brown:
Record in Prime Time: 12 wins, 33 losses (0.267)
Record vs the Steelers: 14 wins, 42 losses (0.250)
Record vs AFC Playoff Teams: 32 wins, 116 losses (0.216)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2002, 2:23 pm

October 16th, 2017, 12:00 am #2

Agreed.

What's more telling to me is how much those larger market teams can afford to make a mistake. The Yankees are currently paying A-Rod $21 million this season alone not to play. If a team like the Pirates or Reds or Marlins are saddled with a tough injury or poor play of one of their top two or three highest paid players they are screwed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 7th, 2003, 1:04 am

October 16th, 2017, 2:57 am #3

In any case it's not really fair to compare the Reds' failures (which are numerous) to the Bengals.

Could the Reds be a better-run organization? Yes, they could put more emphasis on analytics -- which would mean they would stop trying to hit Billy Hamilton leadoff -- and they could have given their young pitchers more starts this season to see if any of them would pitch their way out of sucking. Fundamentally there's a limit as to how much the Reds can compete when their maximum payroll is gonna be less than half of other teams. This year some of the playoff teams made ridiculous acquisitions... the kind of stuff that Bowie Kuhn disallowed when the Reds did it in 1977 . The Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc can all afford not only to sign guys in the offseason to huge contracts but if they happen to be threatening to win the World Series they can make in-season deals to take on huge piles of salary. It's hard to figure how the Reds can overcome that and certainly not to build a dynasty.

The Bungs are in a league that is absolutely fair on payroll. They have only themselves to blame.
Can you say...Homer Bailey...Devin Mesaraco....still paying Ken Griffey Jr. ....Stupid is as stupid does....Run Forrest Run
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 31st, 2012, 4:43 pm

October 16th, 2017, 4:34 am #4

In any case it's not really fair to compare the Reds' failures (which are numerous) to the Bengals.

Could the Reds be a better-run organization? Yes, they could put more emphasis on analytics -- which would mean they would stop trying to hit Billy Hamilton leadoff -- and they could have given their young pitchers more starts this season to see if any of them would pitch their way out of sucking. Fundamentally there's a limit as to how much the Reds can compete when their maximum payroll is gonna be less than half of other teams. This year some of the playoff teams made ridiculous acquisitions... the kind of stuff that Bowie Kuhn disallowed when the Reds did it in 1977 . The Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc can all afford not only to sign guys in the offseason to huge contracts but if they happen to be threatening to win the World Series they can make in-season deals to take on huge piles of salary. It's hard to figure how the Reds can overcome that and certainly not to build a dynasty.

The Bungs are in a league that is absolutely fair on payroll. They have only themselves to blame.
I'm not going to blame the Reds for Mesoraco... they got incredibly unlucky like the Bungs have done with some picks who might otherwise have been good.


Can't blame the Reds for Junior Griffey really. Dude was all-world, and they needed some excitement. Junior made a horrible mistake coming to his home town. Cost himself any shot at postseason winnings.


Homer Bailey... yeah that was f-ckin stupid. The guy was never more than a little bit better than average (career peak is 112 ERA+, at right about the age players peak). He's like the Reds version of Maualuga. Highly touted, hugely disappointing, overpaid, stayed way past his sell-by date.

===============================================
1991-2017 the putrid reign of Mikey Brown:
Record in Prime Time: 12 wins, 33 losses (0.267)
Record vs the Steelers: 14 wins, 42 losses (0.250)
Record vs AFC Playoff Teams: 32 wins, 116 losses (0.216)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 11th, 2007, 4:24 am

October 19th, 2017, 12:04 am #5

In any case it's not really fair to compare the Reds' failures (which are numerous) to the Bengals.

Could the Reds be a better-run organization? Yes, they could put more emphasis on analytics -- which would mean they would stop trying to hit Billy Hamilton leadoff -- and they could have given their young pitchers more starts this season to see if any of them would pitch their way out of sucking. Fundamentally there's a limit as to how much the Reds can compete when their maximum payroll is gonna be less than half of other teams. This year some of the playoff teams made ridiculous acquisitions... the kind of stuff that Bowie Kuhn disallowed when the Reds did it in 1977 . The Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc can all afford not only to sign guys in the offseason to huge contracts but if they happen to be threatening to win the World Series they can make in-season deals to take on huge piles of salary. It's hard to figure how the Reds can overcome that and certainly not to build a dynasty.

The Bungs are in a league that is absolutely fair on payroll. They have only themselves to blame.
I have to say, it saddens me to see all my former Reds in the playoffs, Jay Bruce, Todd Frazier, Chapman, EE, and the list goes on.

At least we now know that the Reds players could reach the world series, they just needed a team with the money and know how to make it all happen.

Yes, baseball is broken. I predicted the World Series would be the Dodgers and Yankees, only on the premise that those two teams were the big money teams that had the largest media market.

That is what the game has become.

The Bungs, on the other hand, are a disease, not a sports team.
Last edited by theydey on October 19th, 2017, 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 12th, 2011, 2:24 am

October 19th, 2017, 12:16 am #6

In any case it's not really fair to compare the Reds' failures (which are numerous) to the Bengals.

Could the Reds be a better-run organization? Yes, they could put more emphasis on analytics -- which would mean they would stop trying to hit Billy Hamilton leadoff -- and they could have given their young pitchers more starts this season to see if any of them would pitch their way out of sucking. Fundamentally there's a limit as to how much the Reds can compete when their maximum payroll is gonna be less than half of other teams. This year some of the playoff teams made ridiculous acquisitions... the kind of stuff that Bowie Kuhn disallowed when the Reds did it in 1977 . The Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc can all afford not only to sign guys in the offseason to huge contracts but if they happen to be threatening to win the World Series they can make in-season deals to take on huge piles of salary. It's hard to figure how the Reds can overcome that and certainly not to build a dynasty.

The Bungs are in a league that is absolutely fair on payroll. They have only themselves to blame.
I detest baseball for what it has become - free agency is the disease that killed teams like the Reds.

As far as the bungs - I think the big money teams like NE and Pitt have the revenue stream to afford the front offices and scouting departments that enable them to dominate football. The bungs have the 3rd smallest net worth in the NFL and probably one of the smallest revenue streams. So in that sense of the word the big money teams in football have also ruined it for teams like the bungs.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2002, 2:23 pm

October 19th, 2017, 4:21 am #7

In any case it's not really fair to compare the Reds' failures (which are numerous) to the Bengals.

Could the Reds be a better-run organization? Yes, they could put more emphasis on analytics -- which would mean they would stop trying to hit Billy Hamilton leadoff -- and they could have given their young pitchers more starts this season to see if any of them would pitch their way out of sucking. Fundamentally there's a limit as to how much the Reds can compete when their maximum payroll is gonna be less than half of other teams. This year some of the playoff teams made ridiculous acquisitions... the kind of stuff that Bowie Kuhn disallowed when the Reds did it in 1977 . The Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, etc can all afford not only to sign guys in the offseason to huge contracts but if they happen to be threatening to win the World Series they can make in-season deals to take on huge piles of salary. It's hard to figure how the Reds can overcome that and certainly not to build a dynasty.

The Bungs are in a league that is absolutely fair on payroll. They have only themselves to blame.
Maybe NWE (the Boston television market and Robert Kraft) is a "big money team" but I would not associate Pittsburgh with that (smallish media market and an old school not that rich owner much like the Brown family), nor the Packers etc. Yes those teams absolutely employ real scouting departments and salary cap specialists and GMs who have different last names than the owner etc. But money with that said should NEVER be an excuse for an NFL franchise in this era. The Bengals maybe don't have the means to compete with Jerry Jones or Arthur Blank or Dan Snyder, but they absolutely have the means to compete financially with 2/3 of the league. A small scouting dept, no indoor practice facility, etc is a choice.

Everything said about the Reds trying to compete with the Dodgers is absolutely true. The Reds/Brewers/Pirates/Padres/Indians/Royals/Rays of the world need to draft well, trade well, use their assets well, and have luck, and even then often do not win big (only the Royals on that aforementioned list have a World Series win post 1990.
Last edited by wyche on October 19th, 2017, 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: