osu45804
Posts: 6,188
Jan 16, 2011 1:04pm
L
Lersavich Mowbranowski
Posts: 9
Jan 16, 2011 2:14pm
I don't know if anyone saw this a couple weeks ago... but he was also named Canada's top athlete in 2010.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-loumarsh121410
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ys-loumarsh121410
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Jan 16, 2011 2:23pm
Great! Now start working on another contract that will lock him up much longer than that!
R
rugbywrestler
Posts: 462
Jan 16, 2011 2:26pm
jordo212000;640313 wrote:Great! Now start working on another contract that will lock him up much longer than that!
+ 38million
Tiger2003
Posts: 15,421
Jan 16, 2011 2:32pm
Not a Reds fan but what is Cincy thinking only signing him for 3 years 38 million....why not lock him up longer and pay him more I really think he is worth it.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Jan 16, 2011 2:38pm
Tiger2003;640324 wrote:Not a Reds fan but what is Cincy thinking only signing him for 3 years 38 million....why not lock him up longer and pay him more I really think he is worth it.
This gets them through arbitration. He probably wasn't willing to sign for longer just yet.
Azubuike24
Posts: 15,933
Jan 16, 2011 3:27pm
This was the first deal that buys out his remaining arbitration years.
M
mhs95_06
Posts: 8,167
Jan 16, 2011 3:56pm
I think the Reds did just the right thing. I don't think Votto is going to take below market value to play in Cincy. And I don't think the Reds are a team that can count on winning with established players with very high dollar contracts. Their best chance is to do it with players under their control before free agency, and then after that only reasonably priced free agents. They have to keep uppermost in their minds that a player that "flames out", such as Eric Milton, has way more dire consequences to their chances for success than a team that can afford a very high budget.
CinciX12
Posts: 2,874
Jan 16, 2011 3:59pm
He wasn't willing to sign anything longer and is even on the record saying he can't picture himself in Cincinnati in 10 years. This deal proves to me that he won't be around past this contract unless we have a WS appearance.
M
mhs95_06
Posts: 8,167
Jan 16, 2011 4:03pm
CinciX12;640392 wrote:He wasn't willing to sign anything longer and is even on the record saying he can't picture himself in Cincinnati in 10 years. This deal proves to me that he won't be around past this contract unless we have a WS appearance.
What difference would a World Series appearance make?
L
Lersavich Mowbranowski
Posts: 9
Jan 16, 2011 5:15pm
because he would have the chance to re-sign for one of the best teams in the league? stupid question...
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Jan 16, 2011 5:42pm
The clock has started.
The Reds have 3 years to win the WS before Votto is gone.
The Reds have 3 years to win the WS before Votto is gone.
C
cat_lover
Posts: 2,388
Jan 16, 2011 10:13pm
Three years is better than nothing.
Ironman92
Posts: 49,363
Jan 16, 2011 10:18pm
Great signing.....hope he is completely over his issues.
$525,000 for an MVP season is funny......at least after 1986
$525,000 for an MVP season is funny......at least after 1986
M
mhs95_06
Posts: 8,167
Jan 16, 2011 10:24pm
Lersavich Mowbranowski;640508 wrote:because he would have the chance to re-sign for one of the best teams in the league? stupid question...
Yes, but for less money than others of the best teams could offer. I think winning a WS may lessen his chance to sign with the Reds for less than others offer. That is because he would have accomplished a major goal in Cincy, and is smart enough to know that with the budget the Reds can afford being so much less than a lot of others, the Reds will never be a juggernaut, and it's time to move on. Of course I disagree that it was a stupid question! He may also be more prone to want to avoid some LeBron James type back-lash if the Reds seem to be contenders, but have not yet won the WS, thus increasing his chance of re-signing with the Reds.
M
mhs95_06
Posts: 8,167
Jan 16, 2011 10:28pm
cat_lover;640905 wrote:Three years is better than nothing.
Yes, it could have been nothing. Imagine if Joey's arbitration figure was $23 million for 2011, and he won. Then the Reds may have to trade him early in the first year to avoid breaking their budget!
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Jan 17, 2011 2:41pm
I'm just glad they locked him up for 3 more years. Unfortunately, this is how small market teams have to do it.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
Jan 18, 2011 9:45am
mhs95_06;640934 wrote:Yes, it could have been nothing. Imagine if Joey's arbitration figure was $23 million for 2011, and he won. Then the Reds may have to trade him early in the first year to avoid breaking their budget!
This makes no sense unless Votto batted like .400 every year. The money the Reds are paying him with this new contract....to get that same amount in arbitration he would have to have better years than he had in 2010 in the following three seasons....oh AND he can't get hurt or that would hurt his arbitration number.
In short, he's getting paid way more with this deal than he ever would have gotten paid in arbitration barring him turning into Ted Williams all of a sudden.
This deal was about respect. The Reds showed Votto respect by giving him more than he is worth (right now) in hopes that he will be more likely to sign an extension in 2-3 years.
T
thavoice
Posts: 14,376
Jan 18, 2011 10:04am
THis is how i see it......the deal is long enough that it gives him, and the reds and the fans, some stability knowing he is under contract. It also is short enough that he cannot just become a fat cat and get lazy wtih a long term deal. Long termers seem cool at the time....but many times it does not work out as the player gets lazy, or hurt and the deal is a waste for all that time. Also, if he keeps playing well then the player gets mad his deal is not for enough because of he escalation of contracts........
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Jan 18, 2011 12:16pm
Mooney44Cards;642449 wrote:This makes no sense unless Votto batted like .400 every year. The money the Reds are paying him with this new contract....to get that same amount in arbitration he would have to have better years than he had in 2010 in the following three seasons....oh AND he can't get hurt or that would hurt his arbitration number.
In short, he's getting paid way more with this deal than he ever would have gotten paid in arbitration barring him turning into Ted Williams all of a sudden.
This deal was about respect. The Reds showed Votto respect by giving him more than he is worth (right now) in hopes that he will be more likely to sign an extension in 2-3 years.
The main thing that this contract avoids is arbitration. The arbitration situation can get pretty sticky and it can leave both sides sour. Nice to see that the Reds avoided arbitration with Votto. However with that being said, if I am Jocketty, I am currently game planning a way to try and lock up Votto for the long term.
N
Nate
Posts: 3,949
Jan 18, 2011 1:02pm
Unfortunately, Votto will be a Yankee in 2 1/2 years probably. I love Votto and wish he'd stay forever but realistically, it's not going to happen. The Reds HAVE to put the pieces together this year and next or their chances lessen.
wildcats20
Posts: 27,794
Jan 18, 2011 6:46pm
Not sure what he means with the Volquez money.johnfayman:
#Reds offered Cueto $3 million, he countered at $3.9 million. They offered Volquez $1.3 million, he countered at $1.3 million.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Jan 18, 2011 7:00pm
well, yes and no. It avoids arbitration for three years which is very good, but the time to leverage out another year or two would have been now. The Indians were able to add a year or two when they did this with Sabathia, which actually gave them some leverage when his arbitration years were over...but alas...the Tribe frittered away the chance to lock up C.C.. They were "determining market value" ....hahaha, they found out!The main thing that this contract avoids is arbitration. The arbitration situation can get pretty sticky and it can leave both sides sour. Nice to see that the Reds avoided arbitration with Votto. However with that being said, if I am Jocketty, I am currently game planning a way to try and lock up Votto for the long term.
jordo212000
Posts: 10,664
Jan 18, 2011 8:23pm
HitsRus;643089 wrote:well, yes and no. It avoids arbitration for three years which is very good, but the time to leverage out another year or two would have been now.
Votto wasn't willing to do that yet
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Jan 18, 2011 9:20pm
wildcats20;643077 wrote:Not sure what he means with the Volquez money.
The second 1.3 is supposed to read 2.