redsfan2 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Article in the Enquirer today is estimating the '04 payroll for the Reds to be in the area of 48 million which would be a decrease of 11 million from last years 59. The breakdown goes ......42.5 committed to 13 players under contract.Kearns and Dunn - about 1.2 mil for both 700k to Dunn and 500k to KearnsThe other 10 at or about the league minimum of 300k and about another mil to guys on the disabled list. Now remember that Bowden was totally dismayed that he was only going to have 60 mil to work with and ended up not getting all of that. The fire sale didn't help, because the team already said that the money they saved by dumping salary was targeted to offset less than anticipated revenues from lower ticket sales than what had been forecast. This proves the old adage about liars not having good memories. Remember when they introduced 2 tier ticket prices last year ??? You know ... where if you went to a Brewers game the ticket would be 10 bucks, but if you went to a Yankees game, then the same ticket would be 15 ?? That was supposed to offset low revenue from ticket sales. Evidently Lindner doesn't remember that, or more likely thinks you don't ..... or didn't notice in the first place. As usual, I'm saving the best for last. If the Reds struggle ...... ( what're the chances of that happening .. right ? ) Then they'll need to save more money by dumping more payroll next year. Now if that made sense to you please e - mail me personally so I can recommend a therapist and get you the help you need, cause that's just crazy.If they've cut 11 mil this year to 48, and that doesn't work then they'll cut 11 more from next year, and at that rate the payroll wil be ..... 0 ..... zero in 3 more years. At that point, I guess if you don't pay to go watch the other team stand around ( because we won't have a team to play them ) , then you'll be taxed the cost of all sell out crowd games for the season .... including luxury boxes and diamond seats, as well as lost revenue from road games. I made a comment about Marge trying to dismantle the team out of spite. Well, she did, and as much as I hated to see it, I understood it. She was pissed and was hitting back in the only way she could. On that level, at least what she was doing made sense to me. This doesn't. I cannot for the life of me figure out how someone who has made the amount of money that Lindner has can be so inept and out of touch with reality. I had a fantasy about Marge kicking off at one of the games .......... Maybe Griffey will break another bat, and this one will get uncle Carl pointy end first through the heart. It used to work on bloodsucking bastards in the movies, maybe it would in real life too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Yea, the decreased payroll absolutely slams the life long fans and further provides evidence that GAB is a conference environment for Linder and his buddies to discuss politics and business transactions. My theory is that he bought the team for his personal use to help seal the deal on several packages. Denying the city of Cincy the Reds hall of fame that was supposed to be erected and opened by this season further supports this argument. The Reds HOF was only supposed to cost $10 million, in which Linder wouldn't finance because of lower revenue at the gate -- "HEY you old bird, put asses in the seats and you get the money that drives your poor pathetic life". I hate people like this in the world.Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds give up Dunn and Kearns once they know they'll be eligible for arbitration. Trade them for pitching prospects. My question to all Reds management is when do we stop with the prospects and go for the win? I guess it will never change until Linder dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Reds Hall Of Fame? That's the first I've heard of this out here in AZ! What gives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 See, this is why I think that MLB should force teams to field competative teams....Now I also believe that there should be some kind of salery cap as well, but that's another story for another time...I mean how much damage is this doing to baseball in Cincinnati? How about the other teams trying to pull the same stunt? If your payroll is less than 50 million, you lose over 70% of your games the MLB comes in and kicks your butt...Hell, take the team away from the owner willing to stink up the team...What the hell happened to trying to win? I've got no problem with teams trying to go with cheaper players....But when you are delibrately trying to field a team that is less than competative then there should be some kind of reprucussions........Baseball has got to do something very soon before the MLB folds cause too many teams are losing money...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted February 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Reds Hall Of Fame? That's the first I've heard of this out here in AZ! What gives? I may be a little sketchy on this but I think it was supposed to be part of the complex. The renovation in the area of the GAB and PBS isn't complete yet, and there's a large space between the 2 that is still under construction. I know a Rose garden is going in on the spot where Pete's record breaking hit landed, and I think that is where the Reds Hall of Fame was supposed to go as well. As the original team, there are a lot of artifacts and memorablilia that are unique to the Reds and Cincinnati. I knew the hall was on hold, but I didn't know it was a dead issue. God I hope that's not right. Did you know that the infield fly rule was instituted because Cincy's shortstop had the habit of dropping pop ups so he could turn an easy double play and get 2 outs instead of one ??? A little underhanded maybe, but clever you have to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I may be a little sketchy on this but I think it was supposed to be part of the complex.It was, but part of the contract for taxing the Hamilton County residents was that Linder and the front office was supposed to front the bill for a Reds hall of fame. Very sad when Linder and the minority owners can't shell out the money required for the fans. I know there's a lot of politics on this one, because Linder owns 56% of the team, he figures he only owes 56% of the bill. But the minority owners think differently; this is just another sad episode of personal gains throwing away tradition and memory for their customers. Sad indeed!Did you know that the infield fly rule was instituted because Cincy's shortstop had the habit of dropping pop ups so he could turn an easy double play and get 2 outs instead of one ??? A little underhanded maybe, but clever you have to admit.LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Did you know that the infield fly rule was instituted because Cincy's shortstop had the habit of dropping pop ups so he could turn an easy double play and get 2 outs instead of one ??? A little underhanded maybe, but clever you have to admit. I think Davey Concepcion is the guilty party. He was an awsome member of the Big Red Machine. Him and Joe Morgan could turn a double play with the best of any combo in those positions ever!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Did you know that the infield fly rule was instituted because Cincy's shortstop had the habit of dropping pop ups so he could turn an easy double play and get 2 outs instead of one ??? A little underhanded maybe, but clever you have to admit.I think Davey Concepcion is the guilty party. He was an awsome member of the Big Red Machine. Him and Joe Morgan could turn a double play with the best of any combo in those positions ever!! Nope ! You're right, Concepcion was one of my favorites too, but this rule was enacted well before his time.I've checked one of my books, but I can't find the exact reference that I was looking for. It was either George Wright ( brother of Harry Wright the founder of the Red Stockings ) around 1869 or 1870 or it was Mike " King " Kelly around 1879. The New York Evening Journal wrote " Mike Kelly was the trickiest player to ever handle a baseball . There's nothing he won't attempt. "He would also hide homeplate with his catchers mask. He would also signal the right fielder to move over. He would then overthrow first base making the runner think he could steal second. Of course the right fielder was already in position to catch the ball and easily throw him out.In one game when he was playing the outfield, in the 9th inning with 2 outs, an opposing player hit a ball deep and Kelly went to the fence and leaped high to make the catch. He landed and started trotting toward the dugout .... the umpire called the batter out and the game was over. When they got into the cluhouse, the manager asked for the ball ( they re - used them in those days ) and Kelly repiled " Ain't got it. Thing was a mile over me head." It's still a favorite trick of 1st basemen to hide the ball and act like they've thrown it back to the pitcher. Then they tag the guy when he leads off.You have to wonder what fans would make of some of those guys today. The old teams were full of guys like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Are you sure? I thought the rule was enacted in the '70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Are you sure? I thought the rule was enacted in the '70's. I was off on the date ...... and obviously the player. The rule was adopted in 1895. Both of the players that I mentioned were long out of baseball by then. I checked the comments about the 6 Reds infielders listed on the 1895 roster, but none of them are identified as causing the rule change.I'm ging to have to check my books again, because I know that is why the rule was enacted ...... I just can't find the dam reference that details it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I think 3rd place is a viable goal, and one that's realistic. We got screwed this season with Chicago and Houston having massive signings this off-season. Then again, I guess we could say our own team screwed us, but I'm going to be optimistic this season; I promised myself as much.Then again, if we get a few career years from our outfield, consistent defense on the infield and the rotation surprises us, whose to say, we could be Florida all over again. THAT IS OPTIMISM MY FRIENDS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 THAT IS OPTIMISM MY FRIENDS! That's SO optimistic, it borders on the level of a lithium overdose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I think 3rd place is a viable goal, and one that's realistic. We got screwed this season with Chicago and Houston having massive signings this off-season. Then again, I guess we could say our own team screwed us, but I'm going to be optimistic this season; I promised myself as much.Then again, if we get a few career years from our outfield, consistent defense on the infield and the rotation surprises us, whose to say, we could be Florida all over again. THAT IS OPTIMISM MY FRIENDS! Damn, you Reds fans are more "optamistic" than us Bengals fans during the pre Marvin Era, maybe the Bengals losing so much in the dark days was just to get everybody for the real stinker of the Reds...No offense, but you guys are gonna be lucky to finish 3rd from the bottom of the MLB....Sorry, couldn't resist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 True, we are more optimistic since we almost won a playoff spot in 1999; forced in a one game playoff against the Mets in which we looked pathetic. Plus we won the division 3 times in the 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.