Looks like the Reds are 4th worst in revenue vs spending percentage in MLB. Just found this an interesting view I had not seen before.
5 comments
This is why people are so frustrated with ownership
Bare minimum should be pushing 45% even wit the core being locked in until 28-29
We just got out of a rebuild. I know a lot of people seem to understand this but when we were not going to be competitive, it did not make sense to spend. That’s how small market teams have to operate. Now that we are looking to actually be competitive, it’s time to spend. I don’t hold it against Bob to be cheap the last few years as long as he opens the wallet now that the window to be competitive is open. We will see if that actually happens though.
> “Well, where are you gonna go? Let’s start there. Sell the team to who?” Castellini said. “If you want to have this debate — if you want to look at what would you do with this team to have it be more profitable, make more money, compete more in the current economic system that this game exists, it would be to pick it up and move it somewhere else.”
Something’s not adding up, Phil…
As much as the Reds could do to spend more on the team, this metric is totally worthless. Outside of player payroll, team expenses are not going to scale with revenue – every team needs to pay generally the same for park staff, materials, power bill, so on and so forth, etc. so the percentage paints this nonsense picture.
Like, are we really saying that the financial flexibility in the $180m gap the Reds have between payroll and revenue, once again excluding all other costs, is comparable to the $330m gap of the Red Sox (a team that was able to go so deep into the ridiculous Soto sweepstakes)?
5 comments
This is why people are so frustrated with ownership
Bare minimum should be pushing 45% even wit the core being locked in until 28-29
We just got out of a rebuild. I know a lot of people seem to understand this but when we were not going to be competitive, it did not make sense to spend. That’s how small market teams have to operate. Now that we are looking to actually be competitive, it’s time to spend. I don’t hold it against Bob to be cheap the last few years as long as he opens the wallet now that the window to be competitive is open. We will see if that actually happens though.
> “Well, where are you gonna go? Let’s start there. Sell the team to who?” Castellini said. “If you want to have this debate — if you want to look at what would you do with this team to have it be more profitable, make more money, compete more in the current economic system that this game exists, it would be to pick it up and move it somewhere else.”
Something’s not adding up, Phil…
As much as the Reds could do to spend more on the team, this metric is totally worthless. Outside of player payroll, team expenses are not going to scale with revenue – every team needs to pay generally the same for park staff, materials, power bill, so on and so forth, etc. so the percentage paints this nonsense picture.
Like, are we really saying that the financial flexibility in the $180m gap the Reds have between payroll and revenue, once again excluding all other costs, is comparable to the $330m gap of the Red Sox (a team that was able to go so deep into the ridiculous Soto sweepstakes)?