Loading ...Did any of you hear Reds owner Bob Castellini’s comments during Tuesday night’s game, on television and radio? Some of the topics Castellini addressed were mentioned by John Fay in a column quoting “sources”: money will be no object, they’re going to go after the best manager possible, etc.
What impressed me with Castellini’s comments was his tone. He is clearly very unhappy at the team’s performance. In fact, the best way I can describe it is to say that Castellini sounded personally offended at the Reds “abysmal record.”
In the end, Castellini stated that the Reds “will get better. We’re going to win — by hook or by crook, we will win.”
Then Brandon Phillips hit a grand slam and Castellini jumped up, clapping and cheering, and high-fiving George Grande and Chris Welsh. He looked like Joe Fan.
The team has been rotten, and there are serious questions about the direction of this team…but I have to say, listening to Castellini makes me feel much more comfortable that there are brighter days ahead. This guy won’t stand for this nonsense for long. He’s going to be a great owner, methinks.
The immediate future is hazy, but I still believe that the future is bright. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but in order to keep my sanity, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Thoughts?
Yeah I saw Castellini in the booth. He appeared to be the single most boring individual in the history of sports. It took him 30 seconds to complete four-word sentences. In the end, I didn’t get anything out of it other than he doesn’t think much of the viewing audience’s intelligence.
Too bad Lou Piniella is unavailable, although I’m not sure if he would have been interested given his dismal experience trying to rebuild (or build would be more appropriate!) Tamp Bay.
He appeared to be the single most boring individual in the history of sports.
Amen. Christ, he must be a thrill-a-minute on the rubber chicken circuit. Mumbles, can’t string asentence together and has nothing to say when he lucks up and does. One can only hope he wasn’t sober.
Good grief, he isn’t running for office. I couldn’t care less that he isn’t a good public speaker. All I care about is whether he is going to be a good owner.
What does “hook or by crook” mean?
Chad,
He spoke in platitudes and buzzwords. he said nothing of substance. When you could understand him, he was less informing than a commercial.
He may be a fine businessman. He may be driven to make the Reds a competitive organization. He may be committed to that goal. But you’d never know it from listening to him. He was a caricature from Dilbert.
Thought he acted as if some of the questions were offensive, carefully choosing his words, offfering very little of substance. He was morose.
Oh Hell, now I’ve agreed with Rick. Look out for the Apocalypse.
Jim,
Here you go…
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/82400.html
His body language in the booth really said it all. He’s very unhappy with the current situation, and I do have faith that he will go after a big name like La Russa or Giradi.
If Castellini really wants to win, he’s going to need a big name manager AND GM. The pitching woes will not be solved with Krivsky.
I agree with Rick, too. Look out. He sounded stumped by George Grande’s kiddie-softball questions. The best comparison I can think of was Admiral Stockdale.
I don’t question the guy as an owner, really. I just have no clue why he sounded so bad in the TV booth Tuesday night. It was only about the 8th time he had to run through those questions, and he couldn’t even string his cliches together into something convincing. Odd stuff.
I disagree with Tom on the “big name” stuff.
None of these guys were big names when they were hired:
Terry Francona
Eric Wedge
Ron Gardenhire
Ned Yost
Bud Black
Bob Melvin
I think only Francona had prior managerial experience. I don’t know that any of those teams have retread, or highly-touted GMs, either.
I think Snoop Dog should be the next manager. Paris Hilton can be his bench coach.
I think changing managers w/o changing GMs is silly. I understand that it takes a GM time to rebuild an organization, but this was a borderline playoff team in a bad division when Krivsky took over, it’s now the worst team in baseball. I don’t like the trend…
The big name, big money managers who are available are almost entirely all guys whom I would never want managing the Reds. If another writer even mentions Ozzie Guillen’s name as a good replacement, I may have a coronary.
I would love to see Scott DePodesta hired as GM, though. Seriously, take a look back at the moves he made for the Dodgers and there really aren’t any missteps. Plus, he’s a stats guy so we would never have to hear the words “Knows how to play the game right” again.
What Chris and Godly Cynic said. In addition to DePodesta, I’d throw Cleveland’s Chris Antonetti and Boston’s Jed Hoyer into the mix.
I live in a small city with small symphony orchestra. Nowhere near the Big Six. Not even second-tier. The KSO has hired several music directors since I’ve been here. Every time they have hired a “name” – usually a guy heading into the sunset who glory was behind him (think Cap’n Toothpick or Joe Torre) – the result has been unsatisfactory.
The best results have come when they hired a young, ambitious up-and-comer. The synergy that resulted came from a group of musicians who needed to be led to the repertoire that best fitted their skills (as opposed to gigantic pieces that, while expected fare, were beyond the scope of a small orchestra) and a leader who desired to succeed in order to build a resumé leading to a more prestigious appointment.
Well, managing the Reds is a little like being Music Director of the KSO – not a bad job but certainly not the plum of the profession. I think the Reds don’t need a name but rather a younger guy with success at lower levels who is invested in succeeding at a higher level for the good of his future career.
Just a thought.
I think that Castalini’s attitude is crucial to the Reds seeing sucess again. Its going to take the intervention of ownership to change this losing attitude that’s present throughout this organization. The change is going to take a boatload of money. The Reds are not going to be able to do this on the cheap.
I agree with Rick, too. Look out. He sounded stumped by George Grande’s kiddie-softball questions. The best comparison I can think of was Admiral Stockdale.
Vivid comparison….and I hope it will prove a valid one as well: I remember that after the VP debate with Gore, Quayle, and Stockdale how everyone dismissed the Admiral as some dottering old man. But as Dennis Miller pointed out, when people were making fun of him for adjusting that hearing aid, he reminded people of the reason he had that device to begin with: it was payment that the enemy gave him for not spilling his guts about troop positions in a war that some of the other candidates Daddy’s were buying their way out of. Stockdale was the chair of PolySci at Stanford University. He had more qualifications to lead in his little finger than those other guys had in their entire bodies (not talking about policies and politics, just abilities and experience). Unfortunately, he looked bad on TV.
I’m not trying to draw a political analogy here, so please don’t get upset about that, I’m just saying that I don’t care how the guy sounds when he is dealing with George Grande, is he really ready to battle for a winner? His interviewing skills have very little to do with his business acumen. I’m glad he sounds dissappointed and irratated at what is going on. I’m also glad to hear him get excited when one of his players hits a round tripper. There is some passion there.
Money doesn’t fix everything either. There needs to be a wakeup call. Shake up the front office. Make a play for a GM who has a successful track record and get us a decent bullpen. I think that would ignite enough people to have a successful 2008. I am of the belief, the minority to be sure, that major overhaul does not need to take place in the dugout for this team to compete. All we really need is for the leadership to quit trying to play politician and start being an Admiral again.
Castellini’s “attitude” is irrelevant. As long as Bob signs the checks and hires competent people to run the baseball operations, he’s done his job. As long as he’s not obstructionist like Lindner or Pohlhad, or pocketing all the revenue sharing dollars like the Nuttings and McClatchey, he’s fine. Before you cite the Boss, note that the foundation for the Yankees’ two most recent success cycles – 1976-1981 and 1995-2001 – was laid while the Boss was suspended from baseball and not involved in the running of the club.
Losing attitudes seem to always get better in the eyes of those who believe such things exist when a little winning is thrown into the mix. The only avenue to winning is talent on the field. Baseball history is replete with winning teams that had lousy “attitudes” – the Bronx Zoo, the ‘72-’74 As, even the Big Red Machine’s clubhouse had opposing factions. The common denominator was talent on the ballfield. The Reds of late simple haven’t had enough talent to get the job done.
You are correct, Glenn, that change will take investment, not a boatload of money spent on names because they are simply recognizable, but the investment of time in developing a strategy and evaluating the kinds of players needed to make that strategy work. Then judicious spending on what is needed to get/develop those players.
Do any of you who fire out these blazing critiques apply these same standards to yourselves personally and professionally? I would imagine you all are eloquent and successful while working on your second billion of wealth to see the way you speak of other successful businessmen. He has enough of his own money to be the principal of the Reds, yet he is spoken of with such great disrespect. I know that his money means nothing to his skills as an owner of a professional sports franchise, as Carl Lindner shows us, but these scathing reviews are so arrogant and, well, anonymous (whether you name is attached to them or not).
Do any of you who fire out these blazing critiques apply these same standards to yourselves personally and professionally?
If you mean to be articulate and speak clearly, yes. I fail to see what money has to do with, it and it’s certainly not a reason to excuse an inability to communicate in the native tongue. I’m not a proponent of the “he’s made a lot of scratch so he should be judged by different standards” school of thought. I realize having money and power exempts you from the laws of the land (see Libby, Scooter) as they apply to us common folk, but I don’t worship at the shrine of accumulated wealth.
I dunno, Cary. If a guy assumes the role of public spokesman, I would think it fair to comment on his public speaking ability.
I don’t think one person here has attacked Bob Castellini’s intelligence, commitment, or even his ability to run a baseball franchise. But yeah, IMO he was monumentally bad in the booth on Monday night, and I don’t think it’s “disrespectful” to say that.
I’m not a proponent of the “he’s made a lot of scratch so he should be judged by different standards” school of thought. I realize having money and power exempts you from the laws of the land (see Libby, Scooter) as they apply to us common folk, but I don’t worship at the shrine of accumulated wealth.
Which I qualified, but apparently you just wanted to make that statement regardless if it was relevant to the point I was trying to make.
The respect comes from the wealth accumulating due to success in a fledgling business. That would imply that there are necessary communication skills.
Chris,
I did not see the interview, but have heard Mr. Castellini speak, and just really don’t subscribe to the theory that “image is everything” when it comes to a public spokesman. But that seems to be the standard by which both Krivsky and Castellini have been judged by–how they speak, if people like their voice, if they like their personality, and if they like their look (persona). And I guess that’s fine if you are looking for form over function, but from where I sit, that mindset gets folks in trouble, whether it getting sold by a salesman, fooled by a slick talking politician, or emptied pockets by a faith healer.
The respect comes from the wealth accumulating due to success in a fledgling business. That would imply that there are necessary communication skills.
No, you missed my point. Accumulating wealth via any path is not something I respect in and of itself. I certainly don’t see that it implies communication skills.
I agree, Phil. I would love to hear how accumulating wealth implies communication skills.
I would also love to hear why it is disrespectful to criticize someone who has accumulated wealth in a fledgling business.
It’s really simple, guys. Castellini is new money. He started his own business and made it into a very successful enterprise. The buffoon that the critics in this thread have made him out to be would make it impossible for him to build the company that provided the wealth to become the principal of the Reds. Not to mention folks are making judgments based on an impromptu interview in the booth. You would think he had just pulled an Ozzie singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame. And again, the folks making the judgments provide no qualifications to make such seemingly expert judgments about someone’s ability to communicate what is necessary for the person’s position in the organization. In other words, an opinion is like a…
Phil,
Couldn’t agree with you more. Spending money on big free agents has not worked out for the Reds in the past. The farm system and resigning our own players would be where I’d put most of the money. I’m not saying a free agent signing wouldn’t improve this club, they just have to be smarter about it than they have been in the past.
Secondly, a manager, with a proven track record could go along way toward a winning mindset. Those guys don’t work for $300K per season. Its upwards of one mil before you start catching up with the elite guys. My first thought is to split the difference and get a competent manager, but in this situation, I’m tired of half stepping this thing. No more Bob Boone’s or Jerry Narron’s, let’s go for it.
I don’t see how commenting on his sleeper of a television appearance implies anything about how I feel about him as a person, Cary. You’re way off here.
If Castellini really wants to win the public opinion polls in the 2007-08 offseason, he’s going to need a big name manager AND GM. The pitching woes will not be solved with Krivsky.
Tom, IFYP. This is where I think the local writers do the team a real disservice because they are creating the news instead of reporting the news. It’s all on the Fay’s and Rosecrans’ and McCoy’s of the world for drumming up some sort of expectation of a big name or that a big name is a requirement to fix what is broken. What do they know of running a big league front office? I want to hear what has happened from the local writers. I don’t want them influencing how a team operates.
To your point about Krivsky, I’m neither convinced that he is or is not the right person for the job. Several transactions point to him not being the right guy, but others show that he is.
I think the amazing thing to me is that Krivsky got 3/8th of the starting offense for nothing (PTBNL, Rule V) – Phillips, Hamilton & Ross – and the team still can’t finish better than last in the league.
I don’t see how commenting on his sleeper of a television appearance implies anything about how I feel about him as a person, Cary. You’re way off here. My statements do not relate at all to how people feel personally about Mr. Castellini. One can show someone no respect and still like them personally. Just like I don’t know any of you personally, so to take any of my comments as a personal attack would be wrong.
the folks making the judgments provide no qualifications to make such seemingly expert judgments about someone’s ability to communicate
I have given expert witness testimony both in the US and UK, presented technical reports to regulatory agencies here and abroad and spoken to concerned citizens groups in public meetings attended and taped by the news media. If I had come across like Castellini, I would have been dead meat.
Note again I am not judging Bob Castellini as a person. I don’t know him other than as he presents himself through the media. And it is that face that fails to impress me.
With all due respect, Phil (if that is your real name :lol:), he is an owner of a baseball team and a successful businessman in private enterprise. I will give your credentials the benefit of the doubt, but he was not giving expert testimony, he was talking to fans on a baseball broadcast. Jumping to conclusions based on that is surprising for someone with your stated credentials.
Cary,
Again I have not jumped to any conclusions about the man other than with respect to his ability to communicate to his customer base through the public media. Let’s take one aspect of what I did and compare it to what Castellini was doing.
When I appeared in public meetings before concerned citizens groups, I needed to be able to communicate not only my work, but how that addressed their concerns and what impact that would have on their future. My goal was to ease their concerns and get their buy in to the process.
Castellini, as the face of ownership, needs to be able to communicate to his concerned citizens – the fan base – what is being done to improve the organization, what the plan for success is and how he plans to get there. So his goal is also to ease concerns and get buy in from his customers. It ’s particularly important because his chosen GM stonewalls the public and tells fans who question his moves that it’s insider baseball stuff they wouldn’t understand.
I will give your credentials the benefit of the doubt,
Well, you’re nothing if not generous.
Castellini, as the face of ownership, needs to be able to communicate to his concerned citizens – the fan base – what is being done to improve the organization, what the plan for success is and how he plans to get there. So his goal is also to ease concerns and get buy in from his customers.
Your comment juxtaposed with Chad’s report:
What impressed me with Castellini’s comments was his tone. He is clearly very unhappy at the team’s performance. In fact, the best way I can describe it is to say that Castellini sounded personally offended at the Reds “abysmal record.”
Now, which is more plausible to communicate in a half-inning appearance in the TV booth? You are talking about a state of the Union address, Chad is fine with “I’m not happy with the current state of affairs. We fired our manager, stay tuned.”
A similar discussion has taken place on RedsZone, and it is quite stunning the communication expectations folks have for public communications to the fan base at large. I just don’t think the type of communication you are expecting is appropriate for the audience that you were a member of on this night.
I don’t care what he says in public…well, that’s not entirely true, but what he DOES will show me a lot more than what he SAYS.
Cary, did you say you’ve seen the FSN thing, or not? Because if not, well, I’m not going to waste either of our time beyond this:
I’ve seen Castellini in the past, and he was just fine at communicating his message, which (to me) was: “I’m a fan first, a businessman second, and I’ll do what it takes to (1) win, and (2) make sure the fans have a good experience.”
I thought he was just fine at communicating that in the past – hell, even at Monday’s press conference. But for reasons I don’t understand, he went into the FSN booth Tuesday night and did nothing but mutter, mumble, and ramble. I don’t know if he was too pissed off to express himself; if he was sick of talking about the subject; or if he was taking a nap and they woke him up and shoved him into the booth — it was bizarre – and even George Grande couldn’t save him.
No Chris, I stated earlier that I did not hear the TV interview. I do not have FSN. But folks have gone well beyond that interview in their comments.
Cary,
I’m not really sure we’re at odds. Just a matter of different perceptions. I didn’t hear what Chad heard and didn’t come away with the same impressions Chad did.
I don’t live in Cincinnati, so TV exposure and third-party reporting on cincinnati.com is pretty much all I have to go by. If you didn’t hear the broadcast (and none of your comment indicate that you did), then we aren’t going to have a meeting of the minds on this.
Now, which is more plausible to communicate in a half-inning appearance in the TV booth? You are talking about a state of the Union address, Chad is fine with “I’m not happy with the current state of affairs. We fired our manager, stay tuned.”
Well, from my POV he didn’t communicate either of those things. He didn’t communicate anything to me because I couldn’t follow his incoherent ramblings. And frankly, considering recent history, I think he owes us a State of the Franchise – clear. concise, coherent.
The fact that an owner wants to win has nothing to do with whether he’s got the brains/organizational skill to do it.
I’ve been a reds fan for a long time. I’m pretty much tired of us losing every year. Spend some of your money on players or sell the team to someone who will. Stop making up stuff and getting our hopes up.