KRIEGER: System to blame for loss of Holliday
By Dave Krieger, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 10, 2008 at 7:53 p.m.
Chris Schneider © The Rocky
When Matt Holliday turned down a four-year, $72 million contract offer from the Rockies during last year's offseason it appeared Colorado was destined to trade the left fielder.
Are the Rockies getting enough in return for Matt Holliday?
Drew on Baseball
Scores and statistics
Baseball players who inspire the imagination don't come along that often. The brawny slugger from Oklahoma did that in Colorado.
That's why it's so hard to see Matt Holliday go. He became an indelible part of our collective memory late on the night of Oct. 1, 2007, bloodying his chin while sliding across home plate (or not) to put the Rockies into the postseason.
He hit scores of tiny rockets into the night, the ball exploding off his bat. His muscles looked like Popeye's. You half expected him to pull out a can of spinach in the on-deck circle.
You could see him anchoring that lineup for years, the way sluggers used to do. In another age, he would have. Of course, in that age, Colorado didn't have a big-league team.
Whether Holliday would stick around or go seek his fortune was determined last spring, when the Rockies offered him $72 million over four years - $18 million per. Holliday and his agent, Scott Boras, turned it down. And that was that.
Both sides had sound reasons for their positions. Boras could see his client getting twice the money and more guaranteed years on the free-agent market, where big spenders such as the Yankees and Red Sox wage war over the available merchandise.
The Rocks looked at the megadeals they had done in the past - Mike Hampton and Todd Helton - and decided they weren't such a hot idea. Their age-regression studies showed guaranteeing big bucks after age 34 was a poor risk. And they knew from experience they were not in a position to absorb a megadeal gone bad.
Once Holliday turned down the Rocks' offer, the question for general manager Dan O'Dowd became what he could get for him, just as it was for his eventual trading partner, Oakland GM Billy Beane, when he traded three established starting pitchers for prospects over the past 12 months.
Like it or not, those are the economics of baseball. As the only major sport without a salary cap, the big-market teams have an advantage they enjoy in no other game.
The hard caps in football and hockey produce similar player payrolls across those leagues. Basketball's soft cap permits more variety, but as the Nuggets' recent buyout of Antonio McDyess proves, it still provides very strong disincentives to outsized payrolls.
In baseball, the Yankees' 2008 payroll was nearly 10 times that of the Marlins. So when big stars come on the market, the big-market teams set the price. Midmarket teams are left to lean on younger players not yet eligible for free agency. In fact, A's fans are already asking why they would give up a prospect as promising as Carlos Gonzalez for a one-year rental of Holliday. They, too, assume Holliday will be a free agent this time next year.
The Rocks' biggest need is starting pitching. I hoped they would get a more established starter than young left-hander Greg Smith in exchange for Holliday. If Smith is the extent of the upgrade to the starting staff by the time pitchers and catchers report to Tucson in February, I will be disappointed.
But because the Rocks also have Garrett Atkins and Willy Taveras on the trading block this winter, they could still come away with more help for the pitching staff. In any case, Gonzalez becomes the key to the Holliday deal.
Smith was a rookie last season and the innings-eater of the A's staff, as Dan Haren, Rich Harden and Joe Blanton were traded. He projects as a third or fourth starter, which is OK, but what the Rocks really need is a front-of-the-rotation starter.
Huston Street is an experienced reliever who will compete with Manny Corpas for the closer's job, helping to fill the hole left by the pending departure of Brian Fuentes.
Gonzalez is the prospect with the highest ceiling. He was a highly touted, five-tool product of the Diamondbacks' system a year ago, when Beane obtained him in the Haren trade. He got his first 300 big-league at-bats for the A's last season, at age 22. He wasn't great, but he showed some promise. For the Rocks, he should be in the mix for an outfield job.
With one year left on his contract, Holliday was not going to bring in trade what he would have brought were he signed long term. He will either help the A's contend next season or Beane will deal him by the trade deadline, probably for prospects to replace the ones he just traded to Colorado.
This is how baseball's midmarket teams have to operate. Ever since he turned down that $72 million, Holliday and the Rocks have been headed in different directions. We won't know how good a deal O'Dowd made for him until we see how Gonzalez and Smith turn out.
But we know already that there's something wrong with a system that made it almost inevitable that he leave.
Click here for a closer look at the players the Rockies will acquire.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
November 10, 2008
10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
RocketJoe writes:
Before everyone starts bandwagon jumping, either off or on, remember that Holliday said recently that he didn't want to wait around for another perfect storm to help the Rox get to the playoffs. He became convinced Rox mgt people were not serious about getting some starting pitching in here. Look at their track record. After the 2007 perfect storm hit full force here, they said that wanted to keep that team together, but then they let Kaz Matsui leave as a free agent, and let Josh Fogg, a major clubhouse positive, leave as a free agent.
Reality bites. They were only going to get draft choices if Holliday left after 2009 as a free agent, and their history of success in that area is not good.
Let's face it. All small-market teams and most mid-market teams are simply farm clubs for the big guys. That's the way it is in MLB nowdays. Anyone who buys a MLB season ticket for any reason other than to entertain clients is throwing good money away.
November 11, 2008
1:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
1somelikeithot writes:
Good article and good explanation of how hard it is for small and mid-market teams to compete for enormous contract demands. It's a shame that this has angered fans so much and probably will leave his teammates feeling down for awhile. Matt will be missed, but that boat has sailed. Gonzalez will have some big shoes to fill, along with Spilly and Seth Smith, and I hope they all do well. Now lets see what they get for Atkins and Tavares. Go Rockies 2009!
November 11, 2008
5:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chadley25 writes:
I agree that the system is broken. Free agency, guaranteed long-term money, and agents like Scott Boras have deeply hurt baseball, in my opinion. When you think four guaranteed years of 18 FREAKING million dollars per year just isn't enough, I'm sorry, but that's just greed. You can put whatever spin you want on it, saying "that's what the market pays" or whatever, but let's call a duck a duck. $72 million to play a game six months out of the year for four years. "No, sorry... that's just not enough money for me." Yeah. That's greed.
My only complaint is that the Rockies got such a mediocre collection of players for Holliday. It was evident that Matt was far too greedy to stay in Colorado, so I'm not surprised he's leaving, but I still think O'Dowd and especially the Monforts are fools who don't deserve to be running the baseball show in Denver. I've never seen such fan support so utterly squandered.
November 11, 2008
5:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
LoveMyTeam writes:
Are you kidding me? The reason why big star sluggers remained in line-ups for years and years is because they were forced to take any contract the team handed them? There was no free agency-- is that what you want Mr. Krieger? Do you want Matt Holliday to play for league minimum for the rest of his career just so he can stay in Colorado. Last time I checked the two teams that were playing in the World Series this year were not the biggest salaried teams in their leagues, and the biggest payroll in the American League, filled with stars, didn't make the playoffs. Would you rather have a guy that is making a lot of money, but helping the Rockies lose or would you rather trade him and get players that can help the team win? After years of having Todd Helton, Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle lose, and then finding what winning felt like, I think the fans would rather try for winning. Oh yeah, and if this whole thing doesn't work why would the A's be the one to trade for him? Sure he is a one year rental, but if they aren't in the hunt next July they can trade him for great prospects or at worst let him walk away at the end of the next season for a first round draft pick. I am just shocked that newspaper editors still let you write this stuff.
November 11, 2008
6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Broncos4Life1 writes:
Why are the Monforts still around in Denver? They obviously are more concerned with pinching pennies than bringing home a winner on a reoccuring basis. Yes, I agree that they've made some mistakes in the free agent market, who has'nt? But they are so fearful of making another mistake that they are handcuffing their future by being cheap! Are the Rockies going to be like the old Montreal Expos? Once they developed a player into something special they would trade him away because they did'nt want to pay him. I don't blame Dan O'Dowd for this situation, he's working with what he's been given, which is a couple of owners that really should sell the team to someone that really wants to WIN, and is willing to spend some money to achieve that!
November 11, 2008
7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ofearghail writes:
Scott Boras is the antichrist.
November 11, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
ramAZ writes:
Geesh Kreiger. Why did you have to RUIN some great finger pointing and whinning with a dose of REALITY?
Your take is right on.
The days of superstars like Tony Gwynn taking a home town discount are long past.
Holliday was destined to head out of Denver as soon as he signed on the dotted line with that snake Scott Boras.
If this move seems unsavory, how would you have liked to see the Rox keep him next season, only to see him walk away as a free agent?
Is this a better package than two compensitory draft choices? Absolutely.
This one is hard to take, but Krieger got this one right.
Why do teams deal with players associated with Scott Boras?
November 11, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Allseasonsfan writes:
I'm not a fan of the players coming to Denver in this deal. However, I am not in favor of paying any player that kind of money. In todays financial market, revenues are going to be way down next year. All pro and college sports are going to feel the squeeze. If you don't get ahead of it, you may get swallowed up. The Monforts should have sold 2 years ago, but now they may not be able to unload.
November 11, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
A sad dose of reality from Krieger. Holliday was not willing to take less to stay here. In a different world, with a real salary cap, the Rockies might have been able to keep him, but that is not how this game works. Whatever Matt says about liking Colorado, when he hired Boras, it became clear that money was all that mattered. No one hires Boras for anything but to get the most money and if you choose him as your agent, you make a statement. I wish Matt well in 2010 in Boston, LA or New York. We did not get equal value, but the system would not allow us to.
November 11, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cutler6 writes:
Guys, check this out before you take the woe is the Monforts, and the greedy profesional athlete stance. There are other teams that don't mind spending the money.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/16/base...
November 11, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cutler6 writes:
Sorry, here is the correct link
http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/16/base...
November 11, 2008
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
avsfan71085 writes:
I don't know who to blame anymore, but baseball has become a joke.
November 11, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
1somelikeithot writes:
LoveMyTeam - are you kidding me? Your comment is full of contradictions. Out of all the articles I've read pertaining to the trade of Holliday, this is the best by far. It explains more or less how the system works and how these things happen. Guess you just didn't get it.
November 11, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Of course baseball should have a salary cap...... duh!
Dave, not sure where you're getting the idea that Boras thinks he could get twice the $18 million per year the Rockies offered. That would easily make Holliday the highest paid player in baseball, even higher than A-Rod. That's a reach on your part, probably for the sake of the article. You also brought up megadeals and age regression...... something about being in the 30's, but Holliday is still very young. How are you trying to connect age regression with Holliday?
This is what I see........ the Rockies feed their fans a line about how they want homegrown players and that's the future, until it actually comes time to pay them their market value. Goodbye Holliday, I wish you weren't leaving. Not much longer, same with Atkins. Nobody on the roster is MVP caliber, like Holliday was, and the players the Rockies are getting back don't improve the Rockies like we'd expect a return on Holliday would get them.
November 11, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
action_now writes:
Cwillyrun1 - He means that he would have gotten twice the guranteed money over the contract life, not twice the money per year.
Either way, Holliday isn't worth that much. He's not one of the the 5 or 10 players in the league. I don't watch baseball because when a team can spend 10 times as much as another, it's not cool. You can always point out that a small market team is usually in the playoffs or winning the world series but when you have probably 85% of the teams falling into that category, it makes sense that more of them would make it to the postseason if even by chance. But year over year, they can't compete and that makes baseball not popular. Good luck in the current economic climate filling the seats.
November 11, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:
The system is not to fault in this situation...Yes, economics does play a part in what teams cant and cant do, but in Colorado, it is more of who is making the decisions, than the system itself...
I am not buying this hogwash that the Monforts are using for not bringing in impact players, or for not keeping key players such as Holliday and Fuentes, and perhaps Atkins...
The M Brothers are stating mid-market status as their excuse, but in reality, why is it that teams like Milwaukee, who claim mid-market status are able to "somehow" pony up the bucks to bring in impact players??? The Monforts are just tooo tightfisted and interested in turning a profit, than they are in bringing a winner to
Colorado. I challenge them to open up the accounting books and prove their point, but they will never do it....So, unfortunately Rockies fans suffer, while the Monforts go on lining their pockets....
Yes, the M Brothers were burnt in the past on long-term deals but that was only because they used poor judgment on talent...They gave a megadeal to Hampton, whose strongest pitch was the curveball, which is not a strength that works well in the altitude of Colorado... Todd Heltons contract was only done to give the organization a sense of stability, when they were still young and finding out about themselves.....If the Monforts had used better baseball sense back then, than perhaps they wouldnt be so reluctant now to jump into the free agent pool....
Some are saying that the key to the Holliday trade is the emergence of Gonzales....If I recall correctly, this guy has been touted by Arizona for quite a few years as their next emerging superstar, yet he never cracked the starting lineup there, and spent most of his time in the minor leagues.....he didnt crack the starting lineup in Oakland either, so why should we believe he will emerge in Colorado???
An organization can succeed even in hard economic times, but it takes ownership and management making good business decisions..Unfortunately, Colorado has neither, and it is because of this group that the Rockies will soon be looked upon as more of a feeder organization for other big league teams, than as a big league team themselves....
November 11, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
action, Holliday is MVP caliber. The only other player the Rockies have ever had who was in that class was Larry Walker. If the Rockies can sign Tulo to a 6 year contract, why not Holliday? The two things I've heard is that he didn't believe the Monforts were serious about doing what they could to keep the Rockies in contention and the offers ownership has made didn't have enough years on them. For comparison's sake, some players who aren't at Holliday's level make more than $18 million per year.
I'm disappointed in Holliday leaving, but I'm disgusted over what they're getting in return. I can't believe the Rockies didn't get a top pitcher in return..... a guy who can be at the top of the rotation instead of nothing better than what they already have. This doesn't make the Rockies better, and if Atkins is traded, they're NL West basement dwellers, in my opinion.
November 11, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
georoc01 writes:
Sorry, I don't buy it. Oakland is well known as one of the smallest of the small market team. If they can afford him, then certainly the Rockies could have.
November 11, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
arvada_mark writes:
I can't believe you guys are calling Matt Holliday a liar. He didn't want to leave...in fact, he would have signed that deal if they would have included a "no trade" clause. Do you get what that means? NO TRADE? That means he wanted to stay here. NO TRADE means he didn't want to be traded. I'm not too sure what is so hard to understand about the fact that he wanted to stay here with a NO TRADE clause. I feel Matt Holliday was forced out of town. That extension offer was a slap in the face...to Holliday & to the fans. It was an offer designed for refusal. So now we are left with barely any power in the outfield. the new kid doesn't have power. Hawper, I love him, but he will hit 5 homers this week & nothing for the rest of the month. Spilly & Seth Smith are barely big league talents. After GA is sent packing, we will have no right-handed power bats in our clubhouse. So on that front, the club failed. And we did not get anybody in this deal that will for sure play for us. Street, I think, will be gone before the season starts. Gonzo is a wild card. I've read several scouting reports on him, & well, he's lazy. He doesn't work hard & relies too much on talent. Umm, this team is horrible, we need to work hard here to win. And the other no-name in this deal, well, can you say "bottom of the rotation at best?" An innings eater, please. We had that in Fogg, & the front office didn't like him.
November 11, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
I just spent a few minutes on the San Francisco Chronicle message boards and Oakland fans there are not really thrilled about this deal either. Some are excited, but they are concerned about losing a top young player (Gonzales) in exchange for a one year rental of Holliday, who everyone expects to leave next year for the big money in New York or Boston or LA. The fans there seem, in general to think that Street and Gonzales are pretty good players with lots of upside. Interesting that this is a trade that does not seem to make either fan base happy. The biggest difference is that most of the A's fans have confidence in their GM Billy Beane, whereas almost no one in Colorado not named Monfort believes in O'Dowd.
November 11, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
opinionatedcolo writes:
Those blowhards who expect the Monforts to go broke spending on Holliday should look at the economics of baseball. The Yankees had revenues of 327 million last year, while the Rockies had 169 mil. Here is a link to Forbes demonstrating the vast difference in income for the teams. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/b...
Given that Holliday had hired an agent who only cares about money, how do you expect the Rockies to compete? You may have some fantasy about an owner who is willing to lose 40 or 50 million a year to keep fans happy, but those guys do not exist. The Monforts have never shown an ability to beat the system or to be smart enough to compete in an unfair league, but that does not mean that the system does not play a huge role in what happened here.
November 11, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
arvada_mark writes:
You want more evidence our front office is inadequate? How about when we drafted Reynolds? He may be good someday, but never a staff ace. Meanwhile, a couple guys we bypassed in that draft are doing very well in the bigs. Lincicum has a new trophy on his mantle as of today. And Longoria was only setting big league records for bombs by a rookie in the playoffs. Throw in what Morrow & Kershaw are doing for their respective clubs...well, we lost big time on that one. It's not just that a lot of us feel the Holliday deal was god awful, it's that this is another in a long line of poor decisions. This time, it may have costed us a Hall of famer. That poor draft choice may have also costed us Hall of Famer.
November 11, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
arvada_mark writes:
And that has nothing to do with money, just baseball sense.
November 11, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
arvada_mark:
Dude, you gotta be smokin' somethin'!
There is no way a guy hires Scott Boras to sign a contract before free agency. They hire Scott Boras to take them to the open market and get the highest price possible! He was GONE the moment he hired Boras!
I could care less what he said or what the Rockies have said about the contract... actions speak louder than words and when a guy hires Boras, he intends to go to free agency and take the big payday. PERIOD. END OF STORY!
November 11, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
arvada_mike:
The fact that you think Matt Holliday is a future HOF guy displays your lack of perspective. He is a good player, but he's not even a marginal HOF candidate right now!
Heck, he's not even in the top 20 players in MLB right now...
November 11, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
chaplainmike writes:
The content of this article is a good explanation of the reality of the situation in MLB. However, in context, it is a bunch of crap. The Rockies have for years now described how their elaborate farm system produces players that will be Rockie players for their careers. So how does it work? If the system they describe is capable of producing players of Holliday's caliber, then what does the big club do, train palyers so that when they reach their performance peak, trade them to someone else? I am so hacked about this deal that the only thing that would have made it worse is if O'dowd would have traded him to the Diamondbacks. The system is broke alright. MLB will keep this system going until the last fan is gone.
November 11, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
MavrickG writes:
Everyone is missing the point here, Todd Helton should have retired so we could have used this money to pay Holiday. Helton's salary is a joke. Explain to me how he is worth any of this. There should be a base salary and performance pay for all the levels a player reaches. That way if he is worth $18 million then he would make $18 million by the way he plays.
November 11, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
arvada_mark writes:
So now you guys are mind readers? Wow. One guy thinks he knows what Holliday thinks (even though he says the opposite), the other thinks he knows what baseball writers will think in 15-20 years. Wow, & you say I'm high...okaaaaay, Cheech. Or is it Chong? You really need to hone up on your reading comprehension skills, don't you? I do believe I wrote that the move "MAY HAVE COSTED US A HOFer." It is in writing, check for yourself. Key word is MAY. Nothing about how he is a sure fire HOFer. Now that is a lack of perspective on your part. I accept your apology for attacking me in lieu of your misunderstanding of my post. And you can start naming those 20 players any time now...I won't even criticize it, I just want to see your thoughts on who the great players are today.
November 11, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chacmool writes:
Don't follow this "sport" until there are salary cap rules. NY and Boston buying championships is not interesting. I'm not following a "sport" where we have the NY/Bosox rivalry shoved down our throats and are supposed to be happy with a playoff visit every 15-20 years. MLB is a joke and has been since George Steinbrenner started buying success.
November 11, 2008
8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
FreeToChoose writes:
arvada-mike:
20 players in MLB better than Matt Holliday (in no particular order):
1. Albert Pujols
2. A-Rod
3. David Wright
4. Chase Utley
5. Hanley Ramirez
6. Manny Ramirez
7. Lance Berkman
8. Mark Teixeira
9. Joe Mauer
10. Ryan Howard
11. Ryan Braun
12. Jason Bay
13. Johan Santana
14. CC Sabathia
15. Tim Lincecum
16. Cole Hamels
17. Roy Halladay
18. Jon Lester
19. Mariano Rivera
20. Brad Lidge
And as for the HOF... Holliday would have to play into his mid 40s to have a chance at 500 HRs and his early 40s to have a chance at 3000 hits, and that's assuming he could maintain his current output over that time. Since he is moving from Coors Field (where his stats are MUCH higher than his road stats) and into the tougher league (for now), the odds are against him attaining either 3000 hits or 500 HRs. And since he hasn't won any major awards and his defense is considered below average, right now he is not even a marginal candidate for the HOF. Sure, he could peel off four or five [more] MVP caliber seasons and if he could win a few and come in second a few more times he could certainly build a case for Cooperstown... but right now, any Vegas-type odds for him being in Cooperstown in 15-20 years would be quite low. So even though you qualify your statement with a 'may,' it just displays your bias for the player. Is he a very good player? Yes. Is he worth MORE than the $18 million per year the Rockies offered? Maybe... maybe not. I bet he does get over $18 million for 6 years (instead of 4) on the open market. But a whole slew of players on the above list are making a whole lot less than that and I would take any of those players over Matt Holliday right now! (and quite a few others NOT on the list... like Evan Longoria, Josh Hamilton and Jose Reyes)
November 12, 2008
12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
thetruth2008 writes:
Blaming they system is an excuse that is just misleading the fans. It sounds like a Monfort or co-ownership reasoning. The truth is the current ownership is more concerned with making money than putting a winning team on the field. And they are making it hand over fist. If they say else wise then ask them to prove it.
Yes, Scott Boras is horrible for the game but there are other ways to play his greedy games and not get fleeced before the season even starts. Rockies fans are now only guaranteed another losing season in the weakest division in the league.
Deals in the past (Hampton, Neagle, etc...) are in the past and should not be used year-after-year when explaining why star players are let go or why the Rockies never get a star player to improve the team.
Dave, do you want to bet the DNA's ownership in the Rockies that Gonzalez and Smith won't come close to proving this to be a good deal? I'll even let you be the judge of it in the long run. (You are much wiser than to even ask that question. Feel free to answer in code if you are being told what to say by management.)
November 12, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Stoneman writes:
Krieger is right. The system, with no salary cap, favors the big market teams - period. They get more money to play with. Still, Holliday could have stayed if he wanted. When he hired Boras that was the first sign he was prepared to go. Plus, $18mm/yr for four years isn't a bad home town discount when you consider what what we got for Hampton, Neagle and other bad long-term deals. I seem to recall that everbody said the owners were really committed when they signed those guys but they simply didn't perform and the Rockies didn't get the value for the money. Will Tulo turn out to be a bust? Look at Helton's numbers? He hasn't hit 100 RBI's since 2003! He hasn't hit 30 homers or 300 Total Bases since 2004! With his bad back he has turned into a $17mm singles hitter! I don't blame ownership one bit for having a responsible business model.
November 13, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
thetruth2008 writes:
Yes, a system with no salary cap favors the big market teams. Key word = favors. Doesn't mean they are guaranteed more success than markets smaller than them. With good management and a "committed to winning" ownership the non-big market teams can win, too. Just from this year look at Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Milwaukee and Florida, among others.
O'Dowd - 9 years in Colorado. 2 winning years. 1 playoff team. Not good at all in Colorado after having success in Cleveland.
Monforts - 4 winning seasons. 1 playoff team. Among the poorest ownership in MLB.
A responsible business model is fine if they are selling beef and are only concerned with profits for them and shareholders. But a professional sports franchise is a representative of a city or region. Profits should not be placed above winning or the hope to win. Owners who are only concerned with squeezing every penny and not putting the majority of it back into the organization should be made to sell their teams. Why do you think the Monforts are constantly on the lists of worst ownerships in MLB?
Look at some of the competition in Denver. Bowlen has never been afraid to spend for the Broncos and takes risks. Kroenke has paid luxury taxes for players to try and win. (Not that they have always paid of, yet! LOL.) But at least those guys are trying to win and care about winning. I wish I could say or feel the same about the Rockies.
November 24, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sparough writes:
Nice job on the article bro its lookin good
November 24, 2008
10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
rockiesfan17 writes:
This trade proves that the Rockies aren't committed to winning. Matt Holliday was a possible Triple Crown player. He was always an MVP candidate and he was our best player. Another thing was that Matt Holliday was the only hitter on the Rockies last year to hit above .300! In order to become a big market team that can spend money we have to WIN. Colorado is a great baseball state and the fans deserve to win. Matt Holliday's comment about wanting to win hit it on the nail. I am sure that every player in that locker room agrees with him. Why should they have to wait for the perfect storm to come along just to win. Other "Small Market" teams still find ways to win and to spend money. The Marlins have won two World Series since they entered the league the same year as us, Arizona who came along 5 years after us have won a world series, so why can't we?