OnlyBucs

A few days ago I heard an interview with Dick Willaims, Reds GM. The question about trading Votto came up. Williams said the following:

-no interest in trading Votto

-If they trade Votto they would spend the same money for less return

-to the same affect, Votto represents good value even at $25M a year!

-The Reds are in rebuild, and they are rebuilding around Votto.



The Reds also have Bailey at $21M a year. $46M in two players; 46% of a $100M payroll.



Neal says its bad baseball to have one player represent X% of payroll (and apparently, Cutch's $17M is too big a percentage of payroll for the Pirates, whatever that % turns out to be).



I really liked Williams, at least he sound's like he has a plan: take apart old team (done), build around the one star. I also like that Willaims flat out stated there is no motivation to move anyone just to save payroll.



What contrast with Neal.



I don;t know if Votto makes sense for the Reds, but I do like the rational William's use to keep Votto: if his money is reallocated, they will not be able to match his value in any combination of players.



I was thinking about Pirate players that we could say the same for, whose value to the Pirates exceed the replacement cost.



I'd like to see Neal resign Cutch and Jhay. About $27M total. Trade Marte, Polanco, Mercer and Cervelli. Trade Cole and Nova. rebuild around "the right stuff" like Williams is doing.



Crazy how different these two go about their business - is that payrole % a real issue or a red-herring to provide a build-in excuse for not allowing big contracts??

I always cringe when I hear the one about not spending too large a percentage of payroll on one player. It would make sense if we were talking about a MLB average payroll. But when you consistently maintain one of MLB's lowest payrolls and have a problem with spending a significant percentage of it on one player, you are essentially saying you will not have any productive players who require market value salaries. So if the Pirates are ever to to contend again, it will have to be with young players who haven't yet reached their arb years, some minimum salaried players and cheap dumpster dives. "Ladies and gentlemen; your Pittsburgh Pirates!"

567B76676071662625140 wrote: I always cringe when I hear the one about not spending too large a percentage of payroll on one player. It would make sense if we were talking about a MLB average payroll. But when you consistently maintain one of MLB's lowest payrolls and have a problem with spending a significant percentage of it on one player, you are essentially saying you will not have any productive players who require market value salaries. So if the Pirates are ever to to contend again, it will have to be with young players who haven't yet reached their arb years, some minimum salaried players and cheap dumpster dives. "Ladies and gentlemen; your Pittsburgh Pirates!"


My point exactly.  I was stunned that Williams seems to not bat an eye at Votto's or Bailey's contracts.  I thought all the way back to when Votto signed his deal - everyone in Pittsburgh thought the Reds crazy.  Years later, the Pirates can't handle JHay's contract and the Reds are rebuilding around Votto's "small mkt killing contract".

654845545342551516270 wrote: I always cringe when I hear the one about not spending too large a percentage of payroll on one player. It would make sense if we were talking about a MLB average payroll. But when you consistently maintain one of MLB's lowest payrolls and have a problem with spending a significant percentage of it on one player, you are essentially saying you will not have any productive players who require market value salaries. So if the Pirates are ever to to contend again, it will have to be with young players who haven't yet reached their arb years, some minimum salaried players and cheap dumpster dives. "Ladies and gentlemen; your Pittsburgh Pirates!"




It's really even worse than that.   If a young pitcher actually hits as an ace, he'll be too high a % of our meager payroll in his arb 3 year, which is about 70% of market. 



NH has used that garbage excuse at least twice now.  He needs to stop talking.  Frank Coonelly can get offended all he wants for people asking if the Team cares more about profits than winning (Piratesfest)   



Keep getting offended Coonelly! You should be embarrassed.    "% of total payroll" is about the furthest thing from a "baseball decision" you could have.   Tell your GM to stop talking if you don't want to keep being embarrassed when the public gets an opportunity to opine.   

464F475658220 wrote: I always cringe when I hear the one about not spending too large a percentage of payroll on one player. It would make sense if we were talking about a MLB average payroll. But when you consistently maintain one of MLB's lowest payrolls and have a problem with spending a significant percentage of it on one player, you are essentially saying you will not have any productive players who require market value salaries. So if the Pirates are ever to to contend again, it will have to be with young players who haven't yet reached their arb years, some minimum salaried players and cheap dumpster dives. "Ladies and gentlemen; your Pittsburgh Pirates!"




It's really even worse than that.   If a young pitcher actually hits as an ace, he'll be too high a % of our meager payroll in his arb 3 year, which is about 70% of market. 



NH has used that garbage excuse at least twice now.  He needs to stop talking.  Frank Coonelly can get offended all he wants for people asking if the Team cares more about profits than winning (Piratesfest)   



Keep getting offended Coonelly!  You should be embarrassed.     "% of total payroll" is about the furthest thing from a "baseball decision" you could have.   Tell your GM to stop talking if you don't want to keep being embarrassed when the public gets an opportunity to opine.   






I didn't make Piratesfest - Frank actually acted offended!?

282F39313F286F631A3D373B3336743935375A0 wrote: A few days ago I heard an interview with Dick Willaims, Reds GM.  The question about trading Votto came up.  Williams said the following:

-no interest in trading Votto

-If they trade Votto they would spend the same money for less return

-to the same affect, Votto represents good value even at $25M a year!

-The Reds are in rebuild, and they are rebuilding around Votto.



The Reds also have Bailey at $21M a year.  $46M in two players; 46% of a $100M payroll.



Neal says its bad baseball to have one player represent X% of payroll (and apparently, Cutch's $17M is too big a percentage of payroll for the Pirates, whatever that % turns out to be).



I really liked Williams, at least he sound's like he has a plan: take apart old team (done), build around the one star.  I also like that Willaims flat out stated there is no motivation to move anyone just to save payroll.



What contrast with Neal.



I don;t know if Votto makes sense for the Reds, but I do like the rational William's use to keep Votto: if his money is reallocated, they will not be able to match his value in any combination of players.



I was thinking about Pirate players that we could say the same for, whose value to the Pirates exceed the replacement cost.



I'd like to see Neal resign Cutch and Jhay.  About $27M total.  Trade Marte, Polanco, Mercer and Cervelli.  Trade Cole and Nova.  rebuild around "the right stuff" like Williams is doing.



Crazy how different these two go about their business - is that payrole % a real issue or a red-herring to provide a build-in excuse for not allowing big contracts??


Cutch isn't a guy that you have as a core guy in a rebuild. Sorry. It makes no sense. Cutch from four years ago? Sure. Cutch, the guy who has only had a good 2.5 months in the last two years? No way.

7868695E4848442B0 wrote: A few days ago I heard an interview with Dick Willaims, Reds GM.  The question about trading Votto came up.  Williams said the following:

-no interest in trading Votto

-If they trade Votto they would spend the same money for less return

-to the same affect, Votto represents good value even at $25M a year!

-The Reds are in rebuild, and they are rebuilding around Votto.



The Reds also have Bailey at $21M a year.  $46M in two players; 46% of a $100M payroll.



Neal says its bad baseball to have one player represent X% of payroll (and apparently, Cutch's $17M is too big a percentage of payroll for the Pirates, whatever that % turns out to be).



I really liked Williams, at least he sound's like he has a plan: take apart old team (done), build around the one star.  I also like that Willaims flat out stated there is no motivation to move anyone just to save payroll.



What contrast with Neal.



I don;t know if Votto makes sense for the Reds, but I do like the rational William's use to keep Votto: if his money is reallocated, they will not be able to match his value in any combination of players.



I was thinking about Pirate players that we could say the same for, whose value to the Pirates exceed the replacement cost.



I'd like to see Neal resign Cutch and Jhay.  About $27M total.  Trade Marte, Polanco, Mercer and Cervelli.  Trade Cole and Nova.  rebuild around "the right stuff" like Williams is doing.



Crazy how different these two go about their business - is that payrole % a real issue or a red-herring to provide a build-in excuse for not allowing big contracts??


Cutch isn't a guy that you have as a core guy in a rebuild.  Sorry.  It makes no sense.  Cutch from four years ago?  Sure.  Cutch, the guy who has only had a good 2.5 months in the last two years?  No way.


Sure,  I understand what you're saying; I'm not trying to compare Cutch to Votto.   It's that we all know the Pirates would never give anybody, not Babe Ruth if he promised to pitch every 4th day, a $25M contract for ONE year, Votto has 7 more years to run. 



I still expect this contact to kill the Reds at some point. But Williams doesn't think so obviously: either Votto will be worth this contract in 7 more years OR his worth to the current Reds team is so valuable that the back end is not a concern. 



Maybe Votto will be in the HofF in the future, but the Reds also decide to carry Bailey for $21M.  On a rebuilding team?



Just a stunning contrast to rebuilding and contending between two very similar mkt teams.  Williams comment "we can't spend $25M better than we do on Votto" is stunning. Especially in contrast to Neal.

I realize my comment about building around Josh and Cutch confused my post. I'm not trying to equate them to Votto or Bailey. I'm thinking out loud: assuming very little return for Cutch, would Cutch with an $18m contract be more valuable then the $18M? And Josh, I'd say we can't likely replace him with either the return on trade or remaining cash.



They're two high character guys, they will probably meet and exceed similarly priced FAs. Then trade other pieces while they still have value. Otherwise: we let Cutch go this year for little; then Marte in a couple more years; etc etc. Williams opened my eyes to the possibility of a totally different model.

Interesting thread and I've been thinking with the rumors of trade Cole, Harrison, Cutch, etc. what this team and payroll will look like in 2018.



If those trades are made for prospects or ML ready players, the payroll likely won't hit $80M. With the influx of an extra one year bonus of $50M, wouldn't this be a good time to secure some FA's and give the fans a decent team to cheer for?



I know it's early and nothing much but rumors abound, but I'm not confident this owner is going to spend anything to give us fans some hope. :'(

The Reds have four players who make more than the average MLB salary with two more hitting arbitration that could go over the MLB average salary. Only a few of those contracts are going forward too. The Reds are also one of the youngest teams in all of baseball with a good farm system.



Keeping Votto doesn't hurt them as they aren't really paying anyone else. Votto is great. Who knows if he will keep it up as he is now out of his prime years? I do wonder if they could trade him or have tried. If traded, the trend is that the Reds would have to take on some of his salary.



Williams took over the Reds at a good time. He should be able to build on that young talent