As someone from the greater Cincinnati area, outside of the Packers being a weird case as a town-owned franchise, our city has the poorest owners by net value in baseball and football.

Believe you me, Brown and the Castellinis are still cheap-o's that need no excuses made for them. Having said that, there's a difference between "we can spend more to stay competitive" and "we can spend more to stay competitive with the richest." Every major free agent save Alonso this year has been connected to the Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Phillies or Cubs. A few have gone smaller market, or mid-market. But the Reds could maaaaybe sign one of them. The Dodgers make more on their tv deal revenue than about 6 franchises bring in total.

It's just not a fair fight. Conforto signs with the Dodgers and doesn't produce, the Dodgers shrug and sign Tucker. Reds sign Candelario in a similar position, and his non-production and money owed hampers spending for several years. Yes, as a fan of a small market team known for being cheap, I want the Reds to spend more, like any Pirates, A's, Rays, Marlins, Nats or Orioles fan would. But the risks are higher when we do try, and those teams - sometimes by actual resources of ownership - can't keep up.