Votto a Red until AARP calls

[West]

This is a comparable contract except more money. How did that work out?

9 years/$141.5M (2003-11), plus 2012 club option
signed extension with xxxxxxx 3/01
03:$10.6M, 04:$11.6M, 05:$12.6M, 06-10:$16.6M/year, 11:$19.1M, 12:$23M club option ($4.6M buyout)

Helton had chronic back problems as well that severely limited his power later on. Not sure when this became known definitively but it wasn't so much age related as it was injury related. That said I would never want my team to lock up a player at that money when they are sure to experience a dropoff starting around 33 years old.

[Sticky Spice]

There must be some angle that I'm not understanding because I'm not in the business. We keep pointing to performance not equaling the money spent, but there must be some other aspect to these giant contracts that makes it a good deal to the teams or else why would they keep making them?

[lastingsgriller]

There must be some angle that I'm not understanding because I'm not in the business. We keep pointing to performance not equaling the money spent, but there must be some other aspect to these giant contracts that makes it a good deal to the teams or else why would they keep making them?

winning teams build a fan base. Letting star players go alienates fan bases. Fan do not care that it wasn't a good business decision to let Votto sign elsewhere and they feel betrayed. Then they stop going to games and stop watching on tv.

[Sticky Spice]

So the Reds would lose more money letting Votto sign elsewhere than they will signing him to a terrible contract... hopefully they start pitching well.

I guess this means bye-bye Brandon Phillips?

[Element]

I guess this means bye-bye Brandon Phillips?

Especially with Billy Hamilton not too far away.

[Norby]

winning teams build a fan base. Letting star players go alienates fan bases. Fan do not care that it wasn't a good business decision to let Votto sign elsewhere and they feel betrayed. Then they stop going to games and stop watching on tv.

So basically it just delays the alienation process then? They won't be doing much winning if all of their money is tied up with Votto. Whatever feel-good effect this deal has currently, it will soon fade to doom and gloom a couple of seasons from now. The only thing you can really do as a small market team is hope that all of your young prospects peak at the same time, allowing you to mix in the couple of all-star caliber players that you can afford. Sad thing for the Reds is that Jocketty has already started pillaging their farm system like he did to the Cardinals. I don't foresee this ending well for the Reds.

[Pogotheostrich]

There must be some angle that I'm not understanding because I'm not in the business. We keep pointing to performance not equaling the money spent, but there must be some other aspect to these giant contracts that makes it a good deal to the teams or else why would they keep making them?

winning teams build a fan base. Letting star players go alienates fan bases. Fan do not care that it wasn't a good business decision to let Votto sign elsewhere and they feel betrayed. Then they stop going to games and stop watching on tv.

I think in most markets if you win you will draw. Keeping star players has little to do with it IMO as long as you keep winning.

[Grounded Polo]

There must be some angle that I'm not understanding because I'm not in the business. We keep pointing to performance not equaling the money spent, but there must be some other aspect to these giant contracts that makes it a good deal to the teams or else why would they keep making them?

winning teams build a fan base. Letting star players go alienates fan bases. Fan do not care that it wasn't a good business decision to let Votto sign elsewhere and they feel betrayed. Then they stop going to games and stop watching on tv.

I think in most markets if you win you will draw. Keeping star players has little to do with it IMO as long as you keep winning.

Agree, Tampa dumped Crawford but it didn't affect their popularity since they won regardless.

[lastingsgriller]

Yeah.. It's a great way to get the fans pissed off at you if you don't win, though.

Even the reds know they aren't winning anything without Votto. Thats potential revolt if they let Votto walk and they turn into an 70 win team.

You have to appear as though you are trying to win to keep your fan base. Especially to the casual fan that doesn't know much about baseball finances.

[Tavish]

It is probably better off to think of it as the Reds paying Votto $30m/year for the first 6 years and $11m/year for the last 4 years, but just deferring the money over time. Barring injury he has a very good chance at worth every penny of the contract, just not distributed equally across the duration of the contract like the payout is.