E-mailers weighed in on the budget and the manager search. Read on...
Q, from Nick in New York: If the Reds put a winning team on the field in 2004, can they draw 3 million fans to Great American Ball Park?If they don't field a winner, which seems their dogged intention, isn't it a given that they'll be lucky to draw 2 million? They drew 2.3 million this year. After the fire sale, the miserable finish and the all-around ill will, I would think 2 million, approximately 25,000 a night, is actually optimistic. Seeing as though it costs a family of four approximately $100 to attend a game, the Reds are forsaking approximately $25 million in revenue by giving us a shoddy team. Why doesn't it make sense to bump up the payroll by $20 to $25 million, knowing there's a good shot you'll get it back in ticket sales, concessions, and parking?
A: You make a good case. But the Reds have decided to go for a long-term fix and put the emphasis in developing players through the minor leagues. That's probably the way to go. But I agree: It makes sense to kick up the payroll for next year if you can get it back at box office. The problem is so much of how you draw is based on what you did the previous year. And the Reds spent much of 2003 ticking off fans. But I don't think the payroll needs to be $80 million. If it was $60 million, I think the Reds could compete in 2004. But chances of it being $60 are nil. The current ownership isn't into the spend-money-to-make-money philosophy.
Q, from Jack formerly of Westwood: Is the new GM an idiot or what? None of Reds' manager candidates are managerial material. Why not go after Grady Little or someone that has experience and has been a proven winner?
A: Honestly, Jack, what did you think when the Reds named Sparky Anderson? Given Dave Miley's track record in the minors, he deserves a shot. Before he got the Red Sox in 2002, Little's managerial resume read like Miley - except Miley had a much better winning percentage.
