RINGOLSBY: Holliday a no-fault divorce

By Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News

Published November 13, 2008 at 7:07 p.m.

Text size

Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images

The failure of outfielder Matt Holliday and the Rockies to reach an agreement boils down to a simple explanation: business.

First pitch

NUMBERS GAME

3 BBWAA members voted Reds right-hander Edinson Volquez second in the NL Rookie of the Year balloting even though Volquez wasn't a rookie. They were Jeremy Cothran, The (Newark, N.J.) Star Ledger; John Klima, Los Angeles Daily News; and Jay Paris, North County Times in Southern California.

HOW LOW CAN IT GO?

Red Sox shortstop Julio Lugo had the lowest batting average with runners in scoring position (.139) for a player who qualified for a batting title since Ron Gant hit .130 with the Phillies and Angels in 2000. Diamondbacks outfielder Justin Upton ranked at the bottom for NL hitters at .172.

HE SAID IT

"The fact that these are all first-year guys is probably a coincidence. . . . I was open to anybody. But these guys come from winning organizations. They have been very successful where they've been, either as players or coaches at the major league level."

Jack Zduriencik, Mariners general manager, on having no former major league managers among the seven candidates he is interviewing for the managerial vacancy. The candidates: Boston coaches Brad Mills and DeMarlo Hale, Triple-A Portland manager Randy Ready, White Sox coach Joey Cora, Diamondbacks bench coach Chip Hale, Cardinals third-base coach Jose Oquendo and Athletics bench coach Don Wakamatsu.

More Sports Columns & Blogs

Comments

November 13, 2008

10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

angryrockiesfan writes:

Another fluff piece! It is unbelievable that it can be said that the Rockies aren't cheap. We all know the Monforts are cheap and that this is why Holliday is gone. Did the Monforts offer him a contract this offseason? Did they make any attempt whatsoever to try and sign him this offseason? Did they allow the front office to go after a frontline starter last offseason when that was the one piece they were missing?
November 13, 2008

11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

RDenver writes:

angryrockiesfan...you are always so down on the Rockies. Why? Monforts are cheap, eh? Bet you didn't say that when they over paid Todd Helton? Holliday turned down $18 per year. If they would have paid him $20 million a year he still wouldn't be happy because Boras is his agent. You fans who keep saying the Monforts are cheap are ignorant. This ain't new York or Boston angryrockiesfan. So get over it or move.
November 14, 2008

4:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

nmbronco1 writes:

The key name in all of this is: Scott Boras. This one agent is more than any other single person responsible for the ridiculous increase in baseball salaries we have seen the past decade or so. Sorry, but NO player in any sport is worth $20+ million a year. The Texas Rangers bit first and then had to get rid of A-Rod because they couldn't afford him anymore. For Holliday to reject $18 million per year on a 4 year deal - he may live to regret it. Unless he has a monster year in 2009, Matt Holliday may become a highly paid nomad. We'll see if he gets his desired $20 mill plus long term contract...
November 14, 2008

6:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

The last offer the Rockies made to Holliday was 5 years and $107.5 million, and Boras had him turn it down. So yes, angryrockiesfan, they DID offer him a contract, and a GOOD one. But Boras is almost always adamant that his players go into free agency where he can get a bidding war going, even if sometimes that bidding war is just one team bidding against itself (see: Texas Rangers and Alex Rodriguez). Personally, I applaud O'Dowd and the Monforts for not giving in beyond their imminently reasonable offer.

But ultimately, this is on Holliday. He claims that it isn't about the money, but that can't possibly be true because no un-greedy person would turn down $100 million for five years of work. Or, if he's worried about a no-trade clause, then let him tell O'Dowd that he'll take $10 million per year for the next ten years if they'll include such a clause.

Whenever someone says it's not about the money, then it's MOST DEFINTELY about the money.
November 14, 2008

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

The_KIMN_Chicken writes:

Way to take a stand Ringslby!
November 14, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

arvada_mark writes:

Yes, he was offered a contract, only after Boras told them to wait until after his current contract ran out. So that offer was made as a token gesture. They knew it was too low, & they also knew that Holliday wouldn't sign it since he just got done telling them that he's going to wait until he plays out his current contract before he negotiates. So, yes he was tendered an offer, but it was outside the parameters Holliday & his agent had just given the Rox. So the offer was an insult to the Holliday camp & it was move to pander the fans. And by telling us to move if we don't like the owners? Where does that come from? How about you bleed Denver baseball for over 30 years. How about you stop making excuses. Was the deal done? NO. Did Holliday publicly state he'd rather play here than anywhere else? YES. The deal was not done because our front office refused to do what was necessary to get it done. The rest is all excuses. It was not done. Bottom line. I voted for the stadium. I grew up watching Tim Raines play at old Mile High. I was at the weekend series when the Denver Bears outdrew the NY Yankees during a 3 game stand. I've attended about 300 Rockies games since inception. So I have every right to expect even a marginal effort from our front office to field a competitive team year in & year out.

Remember when Francona hit something like .370 for the Bears one year. Remember what a great minor leage player Daryl Boston was? I still have a foul ball from back then that I had him sign. You can barely make out his signature though. Hey, it's 30 years old. He was a pretty good big leaguer as well. Hawk Dawson? Yeah, there's Hall of Famer for you.
November 14, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Are the Rockies to blame for Holliday leaving? No doubt about it. Does Holliday also deserve blame? Of course he does. He hired Scott Boras. What I find most disheartening is the Rockies ownership. Let's face it. This was a salary dump. They did not even want to pay him $13 million for this year. To say that it would have been a distraction to keep him on the team until the trade deadline is ridiculous. Matt Holliday in a Rockies uniform gave this team a good chance to win. With him gone, the outfield lacks consistent power. Hawpe is too streaky. To further prove the point the Rockies are cheap, they are still talking about trading Atkins. I thought it would be an either or but not both. The Monforts, O-Dud and the rest of the Rox front office must be birds because all I hear coming out of Coors Field is Cheap, Cheap, Cheap! They couldn't even get a big league arm in the trade! Why? Because arms that win games cost money. The Rox will continue to get by with the Kip Wells and the Kevin Towers of the world. Sad indeed.
November 14, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"So, yes he was tendered an offer, but it was outside the parameters Holliday & his agent had just given the Rox."

So the front office is supposed to only tender offers that are within the parameters set by the player and agent? That makes no sense at all. If only one side gets to dictate the terms, then there is no such thing as "negotiation" to be had.

"Was the deal done? NO. Did Holliday publicly state he'd rather play here than anywhere else? YES. The deal was not done because our front office refused to do what was necessary to get it done."

Obviously Holliday wasn't being truthful, or else he would have taken their offer of 5 years and $107.5 million (which would have put him among the top 5 or so in MLB in terms of average compensation).

"This was a salary dump. They did not even want to pay him $13 million for this year."

They offered him 5 years and $107.5 million. That's over $21 million per year on average. How high would they have to go before it's not a "salary dump"?

To those who are blaming O'Dowd and the Monfort brothers: Just what sort of annual compensation should they have offered Holliday?

Okay, I looked it up: $21 million per season would put Holliday 4th in MLB in terms of annual compensation, behind A-Rod, Giambi (who is actually now a free agent, with NO contract), and Jeter. So actually, Holliday would have been third behind A-Rod and Jeter had he accecpted the offer from the Rockies.

An incredibly generous offer from the Rockies was spurned by a player and his agent. That's the bottom line here.
November 14, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

I have been waiting for Ringolsby's opinion, because he knows more about baseball than anyone else writing in this town and much more than those who post on here, myself definitely included. I agree with his analysis that given the situations and people involved this was probably a deal that had to happen. Trading for prospects is always a risk, but so is just losing a player who really seemed determined to get the most money he could. I wish Tracy would have addressed the "no trade clause" issue that Holliday is using to justify his position to reject the Rockies offer without even countering. I would like to know why the Rockies would not consider that.

I note that Tracy does not take a position on the much larger question of whether the Monforts will ever spend enough to make this a consistent team or whether, given the economics of baseball, if that is even possible. That issue is really at the heart of the long term future of baseball in Denver.
November 14, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

cofan17 writes:

Come on everyone, let's be real about this. This is a poorly run organization, and it always has been. Name one other team in baseball that would still have Hurdle as its manager. This is a mid-market team that has the 26th lowest payroll, but still only spent the 27th lowest amount on the 2008 draft. If no money is going into the draft, and no money is getting spent on players, then not enough talent is going to come in to make the team competitive. The "big" free-agent pickup for the Rockies this year will be to bring back Affeldt, you watch. it's too bad to, because just a little bump in money to bring in the "right" pieces, and this terribly weak division could be easily won. The Giants will make the "right" moves and make another jump in the right direction, thus passing the Rockies in 2009. In the NL West, only the Padres will be worse than the Rockies in 2009...another solid 4th place finish for the team that won't even spend money in the draft to acquire talent. That will net them another high draft pick that they can blow on a pitcher that no other team has in their top 5 (see Greg Reynolds over Longoria, Lincecum, Morrow and Kershaw a la 2006). Just a badly run organization from top to bottom.
November 14, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

FreeToChoose writes:

arvada_mike:
Why are you so adamant to let Holliday and his agent off the hook here???

By your own admission, Boras told the Rockies to hold off on any offers until AFTER THE CONTRACT RAN OUT!

That's about as firm a stand as a player and agent can take that they intend to shop their player on the open market.

Still, the Rockies made a legit offer because they wanted to show the fans what they are willing to pay to keep the player... and $18m/yr is a generous offer, representing only a minimal hometown discount (although likely for less years than Boras/Holliday are likely to want). Yet the player/agent declined to even counter... because they intend to go to free agency! They left the Rockies no choice but to deal him. Unless you would rather have taken two draft choices??? Like Ringolsby wrote above... this was a business decision by both parties. They laid their cards on the table and were honest with each other... you're just not being honest with yourself. You're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Both sides in this negotiation knew how it would proceed, given the positions.

The Rockies, as currently constituted, are not a division or penant contender in 2009. So why hold onto Holliday? They can still bid on Holliday next year, which is the position the player & agent placed them in anyway! And they now have three MLB-ready players just in case they lose-out...

What alternative was left to the Rockies? Leave the team as constituted... with 3/5 of a starting rotation and a slim chance at a winning season, much less a contending season... and pay Holliday the $13.5m this year to watch him walk away in FA?

Yeah... that's sound advice!
November 14, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Hey LockeRobster,

Come on. You know and I know Holliday was never going to take that low-ball offer that was tendered to him. A four-year deal? You have to be kidding me. Regardless of the contract that was offered, the Rockies knew Holliday would never take it. It was a way to save face that they "made an attempt" to sign him. If they really wanted this guy longterm they would have never allowed for it to get to where it did. And to have one of the Beef Brothers blame Holliday for creating a distraction last season when he didn't sign last year is a farce. This team did not go out and spend the money for some pitching last year other than claiming the Towers, Redmans and Wells off the recycling heap for pennies. One last point, when the Rockies get rid of Atkins, Torrealba and Taveras only two position players will be making more than $1 million, Hawpe and Helton. This reaks of being cheap. They also won't pay money to any player homegrown or free agent in the future. I doubt the Rockies will spend the Holliday money, $13 million, or even $18 million next year to improve the team. They offered Holliday money they never intend to spend.
November 14, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Just a badly run organization from top to bottom."

And yet, somehow, the Rockies played in the World Series roughly 13 months ago.

Seems to me that they've done a pretty good job drafting and developing talent, or else that statement could not have been true. Because let's recall that 20 or 21 of the players on that 25-man World Series roster came from the farm system.

O'Dowd is trying to shift this organization into the same sort of model as the Twins and A's, in which a few players are targeted to retain and others are replaced as they price themselves out of town. And oddly enough, if you do the math on home-game revenues (what a team would take in for a sellout based on average ticket price times stadium capacity), the Rockies slot right between those two teams.

And like I said before, the Rockies offered to make Holliday the 3rd highest paid player in the game for the next five years (even though he is NOT the 3rd BEST player), and he turned them down. I just don't see what else they could have done under the circumstances. We can maybe argue that they could have possibly gotten a little more in return, but Holliday made it abundantly clear to anyone who has been paying attention that he had no real intention of remaining in Denver.
November 14, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Willy writes:

As someone who stood in line the first day deposits were taken for season tickets before the team even existed, and have shelled out for premium tickets every year, I am extremely unhappy with the Rockies ownership. This is not an isolated incident. Read Woody Paige's article in the Post to see the total scope of this salary dump, this year. Please, someone who loves the game, buy the team from the bankrupt hamburger salesmen.
November 14, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Come on. You know and I know Holliday was never going to take that low-ball offer that was tendered to him. A four-year deal? You have to be kidding me. "

O'Dowd stated a day or two ago that the final offer they presented to Holliday was for 5 years and $107.5 million. Matt would have been the 3rd highest paid player in baseball based on annual average salary. The only players who would have made more money annually had Holliday accepted that offer would have been A-Rod and Jeter. I don't know about you, but when I see a team offer to make someone among the top-5 best paid players in their particular sport, I find it hard to call them "cheap".

So you tell me: What does it say about a player who rejects becoming the 3rd highest paid player in his sport? Does the word "greedy" come to mind for you at all?

"They also won't pay money to any player homegrown or free agent in the future."

Patently false.

Cook is signed for three more seasons (at too much money - $10 million per season - to me) with a mutual option for 2012. Tulowitzki got a nice deal last winter (6 years, $31 million, with an option - a RECORD DEAL for a player with less than 2 years of experience). Hawpe is signed through the end of the 2010 season and so is Francis (with a club option for 2011 on both). Corpas is signed through 2011 with club options for both 2012 and 2013.

And that doesn't account for the players that are still well under team control (Stewart, Iannetta, Smith, Spilborghs, others) for a number of seasons going forward who will all have a chance to either accept or reject reasonable offers from the team as their service time accrues.

The Rockies have shown that they are imminently open to retaining their own players. Matt Holliday decided that $21 million per year for five years was an insufficient offer, even though only two players in all of MLB currently have bigger deals annually.
November 14, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

LockeRobster,

I like that you keep bringing up this $107.5 million deal when it never go to that point. Ringolsby even does not go there
"The Rockies did offer Holliday a four-year, $72 million extension last spring. He rejected it."
End of discussion and the Rockies cut off negotiations. Don't tell me they wanted to pay market value with a long term contract because they didn't and wouldn't. The four-year deal is a joke. Four years?
Yeah, the Rockies have retained some players at what I would call a discount. I agree with you that Cook's deal was maybe for too much, but Francis signed for $13 million and Corpas for $8 million. Hawpe got locked-in around $16-$17 million. Tulo also signed that record deal. But my point is longterm, forget it. Tulo will walk when his contract is up. If he turns out to be one of the top players in the league you can say bye bye to him because no way do they pay market value for players they no longer can control. Say bye bye to Ian Stewart when he is no longer under control by the Rockies. Say bye bye to this Gonzalez kid, if he pans out, when the Rockies no longer control him. By the way, where is that $13.5 million that Holliday was going to be paid being spent on this year's club? I doubt they spend the $18 million they were willing to pay Holliday in his new contract. Can't you see that the Rockies are cutting costs instead of trying to improve this team. Cheap! Cheap! Cheap! And don't tell me this is a small market club. The Rox revenue is the 8th highest in baseball. Cheap Cheap Cheap! Even Atkins at $4 million this year is too expensive. Can you say Cheap? I will say it for you again. Cheap Cheap Cheap!
November 14, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

arvada_mark writes:

Well, being a loser may be fine with you, but I like to win. Mr. Kroenke also traded away a superstar recenty. And he got a lot more than a ham sandwich in return. He actually got an MVP in return. A Denver sports icon. A perennial All-Star for a perennial All-Star. Imagine that, a fair deal that primarily has to do with winning. In those terms, it doesn't seem too difficult...does it? He filled a gaping hole in our line up. Why did the Rox trade their superstar for what O'Dowd called "potentially ready" players? I say it's because they also are on very short term deals & can easily be sent away if they appear to be headed for a raise. You can say what you want, but this is all about money, & the crew in charge of spending here doesn't do it the way the market dictates you have to in order to win. Like I said before, the Rox got railroaded by a man (Beane) who knows how to play the game 100% better than the guys we got. Heck, if the A's had even made Jesus Christ part of the deal, it still would have been highway robbery ("He can't hit a curve ball").

The funniest thing I've read all day is when one of you Brothers Monfort deciples actually stated that the Rox could bid for Holliday's services after next year. That is too funny. I mean, what will they offer him then? They already insulted him in front of the entire city with their so-called "serious attempt to re-sign" him. All they had to do was add another year & a no-trade clause. But no, they wanted to put on a grand show for the fans of Denver saying, "Hey, we did our best, but Matt Holliday is the bad guy..." I am so sick of this blame shifting by both the Brothers Monfort & their supporters (not that kind of supporter).

And the World Series run. I had a great time being a die hard fan as all that was unfolding. I wore the same outfit for every game since Helton took Saito deep, & yes, I'm sure I was mighty rank after not washing it for over a month (stale beer & cigarettes don't always smell so nice), but let's not kid ourselves about what really happened. The run we went on, it was awesome. But it has never been done before & probably will never be done again. And all that was just to get into a play-in for the Wild Card. Agreed, including the play-in game, we tied for the most wins in the NL that year. But it took a feat of monumental proportions just to get there. So stop lying to yourself, this club is a long way away from being a World Series team. A lot further than one would think 13 months could take you.

BTW, in Oakland, the fans call the strike-out kid we got from them "CarGon." As long as his well documented laziness doesn't follow him here, he should be fairly good one day. The sad thing is that we really don't even want to get to know this guy because if he does turnout to be something special, he'll be gone before we really get to enjoy having his talent here.
November 14, 2008

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

shimjhawk writes:

if this is about Boras as Holliday's agent then why not go after Atkins for a long term deal. The answer is the Rockies are cheap, they could've given a little and kept Matty but now they can say well it's all about Boras.
November 14, 2008

2:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

angryrockiesfan writes:

It has been well documented the offer to Holliday was a four year extension at $18 million per year with a much cheaper player option for the fifth year. Top free agents are getting more per year and more years guaranteed. Even Torrii Hunter, a fine player, but no Matt Holliday got 5 years at $18 million per year. The offer was just to appease fans because the Rockies couldnt possibly expect him to take such a big discount, Boras or no Boras. Matt was clear on what he wanted in the paper and ownership was quoted as saying they would try to bridge the gap but they made no effort. This was a salary dump.
November 14, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

Here's your "documentation":

http://cbs4denver.com/sports/holliday...

"O'Dowd, breaking from his policy of not discussing financial figures, said the fans should know that the Rockies offered Holliday a deal worth $107.5 million over five years, the best Colorado could do, during spring training last season."

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/salarie...

I don't know what structure his yearly salaries would have taken, but Holliday would have been VERY far up this list of players in 2008, and if it was structured like most contracts (step increases every year) then he would have been in the top 2 or 3 in very short order.

And even if it WAS for "only" $18 million per year for four years (debunked in the aforementioned article), Holliday would have "only" been the 6th highest-paid player in baseball.

When a team offers to make one of its players one of the 5 or 6 highest-paid athletes in its respective sport, what sort of "big discount", exactly, does that represent?

I hope one of you Rockie bashers will cut and past the preceding paragraph and give me a direct answer to that question.

What sort of salary SHOULD they have offered him?

Boras wants Holliday to go into the free agent market next winter. Everything else about this situation takes a back seat to that. Even Holliday's repeated statements about wanting to stay in Denver. In short, Matt Holliday lied to the fans. Those statements were nothing more than playing to the masses in order to try to get the Rockies to up their offer, and you guys have blindly bought into it.

He was offered AT LEAST "fair market value" ($21.5 million per year, on average, for five years), and he turned it down. He would have been among the five highest-paid players in MLB, and he rejected it. That's his right, but for people to bash O'Dowd and the Monfort brothers for "not stepping up" is just ludicrous.

This is a simple case of greed on the part of a player and his agent, and it needs to be called what it is.
November 14, 2008

9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

angryrockiesfan writes:

The 107.5 figure that the Rockies have mentioned to make the offer seem better than it was to confuse fans such as yourself which has obviously worked was including the two years already agreed on (9.5, 13.5), the $18 million over four years, and then the $12.5 player option. So over the course of 7 years, he could make $107.5 million if he exercised the player option. The 9.5 and 13.5 were for his arbitration years so he was going to get that regardless. He will never pick up such a low player option. So it was a four year, $72 million offer as Ringolsby and the Denver Post reported. No great player is going to take a deal that guarantees only 4 years when he could get several more years on the free agent market. Soriano signed an 8 year deal when he was a free agent.
November 15, 2008

4:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

angryrockiesfan:

When a team offers to make one of its players one of the 5 or 6 highest-paid athletes in its respective sport, what sort of "big discount", exactly, does that represent?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.
November 15, 2008

6:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

carryBIGstick writes:

To all Angry rockies fans.
Get over it.
if this organization makes you that angry, don't watch them, pay attention to them, and move on and enjoy your life.
Act like an adult instead of a cub fan.
November 15, 2008

7:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:

First its Holliday...next will be Fuentes...Then next year will be Atkins, and 2 years from now it will be Hawpe and Francis...As long as the Monforts own this organization, it will be a revolving door for players...it wont change....its inevitable....

Rockies fans dont deserve it, but the future of this organization will quite possibly be that of a feeder organization for other MLB teams....

I dont know why the Monforts insist on staying in this business....They must realize they cant swim with the big sharks in baseball...The logical decision would be for them to just sell the team to an owner with deep pockets, and stick with the beef industry....But that probably wont happen, so Rockies fans will either have to support the team as it is, or boycott the games in the hopes that the Monforts will be forced to sell....That is the only action I can see angry fans taking....If I still lived in Colorado, that is exactly what I would be doing.....

How about an organized boycott??? Any particular game could be picked...Hopefully, an organized large number of fans would walk out of the game around the 4th or 5th inning, just to show their displeasure with the ownership, and/or management of this team....If it was well-organized, it might send a very strong message.....

Anyway, its a thought....

Ringolsby, when are you going to write an article on the future of this organization???
November 15, 2008

8:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

bookmark54 writes:

Why didn't O'Dowd play Holliday until about 3 months into the '09 season (let's say June or July, 2009), and see where the Rox were then? It wouldn't have mattered, because we all know that every single one of the desperate, rich, larger market teams would've offered a lot more than Smith, Gonzalez, and Street for Holliday. Perhaps WE could've gotten the star player / quality starter for Matt could've helped THE ROX to a title in the NL West! - There are two main reasons why he didn't wait. This club wants to save money on salary, and O'Dowd is a poor negotiator. We DID get something for superstar Matt Holliday (Street is the quality player in the bunch), just not fair value, and just not enough.
November 15, 2008

8:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:

Boras is a big factor in these crazy salary jumps, but isnt it also the fault of owners who can, and are, able to pay these salaries??

Owners with deep pockets cant control themselves...Boras knows it and relies on it to get the highest salary that he can for his clients....Its not entirely his fault as I am seeing from some of these postings....Owners are also to blame, because they are the ones setting the "fair market value" for big-time players....And since there isnt a "hard cap" in baseball like there is in other sports, it is quickly spinning out of control...

The Monforts are smart enough to realize that they cant play that game, but at the same time they will inevitably lose their star players....I dont see how they can field a competitive ballclub with that philosophy....That is why I keep posting that the Monforts simply do not have the financial firepower to compete with the Yankees, or Mets, or Red Sox for retaining their own impact players...Therefore, they should consider getting out of baseball and stick with the beef business.....
November 15, 2008

11:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Halosfan777 writes:

As an Angel fan i can tell you guys that Gonzalez is better than some of you people think. Ive seen this kid in person and he has a great swing and he is a doubles machine. In Coors Field he will hit a lot more triples as well. Sure he is no Matt Holliday but when you werent going to resign Holliday in the first place you got a great deal. A lot better than most teams offers. Smith looks like he has a pretty good future, as my buddy who is an A's fan said he saw him in AAA and thought he was good. When i watched him against the Angels i saw two sides of him. 1 game i know that we lit him up, the second though he shut us down through 6 innings i believe. He has good potential. And then of course we all know about Street. Honestly i think that this deal would have been the best you got. I know that the Angels might have offered if they couldnt pull off Teixeira. But you guys pulled the trigger pretty quickly. I believe that if we didnt get Tex we would've offered a deal that involved Santana or Saunders. But I'm not sure who else would've been in the deal. Either way i don't think this turned out so bad. You still might get a good proven starter if you trade Atkins to the Angels ;) Anyway just an opinion from a different fan
November 16, 2008

5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

bookmark54, I only find one flaw in your reasoning for keeping Holliday until next year's trade deadline: Any team that would be in contention at next year's deadline would NOT give up a quality starting pitcher if they are in the race, not even a #3-type starter.

And here's the bottom line: The Rockies are a small market team, and O'Dowd is trying to remake the organization in the same mold as Minnesota and Oakland, which are the two teams the Rockies compare with (almost exactly) where financial resources are concerned. They are moving more towards a draft-and-develop mode of operation, and that is where we should expect them to be going forward, I think. And as those other two organizations have shown, you can be very competitive over the long haul if that model is properly enacted.
November 16, 2008

4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

bookmark54 writes:

LockeRobster, I actually agree (surprise!), thanks for making the point! And if a contender's gotta have hitting AND is willing to give up a starting pitcher, maybe we could've gotten a #2 or #3... Perhaps that would've been a little risky for us, considering Holliday would've been outta here anyway.

However, I think we should all quietly watch the A's next year, and see what they do come the All-Star break. Maybe they can do something interesting with Matt... if they're not contending by then, is that a deal?
November 17, 2008

5:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Maybe they can do something interesting with Matt... if they're not contending by then, is that a deal?"

I'll definitely still be paying attention to what goes on across baseball, so the A's will definitely be on my radar. Besides, if someone like Holliday changes hands at the deadline next year it will be all over the sports media.

I still have a hard time envisioning a contending team trading away a sure-fire starter for a bat at the deadline. It almost never happens that way that I can recall.

Ultimately, I think Street will be traded to a team needing a closer (and there are more than a couple), and we won't really be able to judge this deal for at least 2-3 years, like most deals involving trading an established star for prospects.

I'll say this: Greg Smith appears to have some real talent. For a rookie to go 190+ IP in 32 starts is pretty good, and he only allowed 169 hits, also pretty good (especially considering that's in the AL with a DH). And he's left-handed. The only thing I see is that he walked a few too many (87) with not enough strikeouts (111) this past season. He looks like the #4 starter right now to me, and he might improve into something more than that with a little time.
November 17, 2008

5:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:

Halosfan777....I appreciate your insight into Gonzalez.....I am sure that O'Dowd is PRAYING that this guy comes through for the Rockies, as justification for the trade, because if he doesnt than O'Dowd will probably be run out of town next year...

The problem I have with Gonzalez is this...I believe that Arizona had been touting this guy for about the past 4 or 5 years that he was their next emerging player....It didnt happen...so, they tired of waiting for him and sent him to Oakland as part of the Haren deal....Now, Oakland, which is STARVING for sluggers, sends him packing to Colorado...This would indicate to me that this guy is either an underachiever, or teams have overrated him....Either way, its not a good sign for Colorado....Now, dont get me wrong...I WOULD LOVE to see him emerge in Colorado, but please understand me for having some doubts....

I would like to see the Halos have success there in the American League....You have some real talent there......I wish the Rox could have enticed you to give up some of your young arms there....Who knows...at the rate the Rockies are giving up their talent, you will probably get Atkins for cash next year.....
November 17, 2008

8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

ramAZ writes:

Halosfan777.... how DARE you bring baseball IQ and unbiased intelligent analysis into THIS forum? No my friend... this forum is intended for unrealistic and passionately mis-informed fans only. This forum is intended for those who think the Rockies should spend like the Yankees, Cubs and Sox... and by the way... point the very same accusing finger at ownership about the price tag of attending games. Shame on you Halosfan777 for pointing out that the Rox actually did get value back in a trade for a player who did NOT want to be here any longer. Why would you want to come in here and give this jaded fan-base a little dose of reality with some honest, unbiased analysis? I think you just ruined my day.
November 17, 2008

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

atfisher writes:

It's a pleasant surprise to see a passionate, insightful and levelheaded fan like LockeRobster on here. I would vent, argue and throw out numbers and facts, but LockeRobster said just about all I can say.

Except this. Those of you thinking Gonzalez is overrated and "hasn't panned out" because he's 23 (although he was at the big show last year).

Guess what Matt Holliday was doing when he was 23? He was playing for AA Tulsa, hitting .253 with just 12 home runs and a slugging percentage worse than the likes of the weak Cory Sullivan, big time bust JD Closser and no names Kevin Burford and Seth Taylor. His OBP was a miserable .310.

Moral to the story: The Rockies have CarGo for some five more years, and he's already several years ahead of where Holliday was at his age. Wisen up and give CarGo a shot.
November 17, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

arvada_mark writes:

If you guys think we are angry or feel betrayed by this one deal, then you are the mis-informed ones. Your narrow mindedness is really starting to bother me. We are angry becasue it is obvious the front office has no interest in winning here. They are happy pulling revenue from the gates & merchandise sales, but refuse to put it back into the team. From what I can gather, & I've never found anything that specifically states what they pull (they are too scared to let that one out), but I'm thinking the Brothers Monfort are making roughly $40mil per season. So, who were you calling greedy? And who says there's no money left? Half of that would have gotten the Holliday deal done. A drop in that bucket would have kept B-Fuent. A drop from that same bucket would have kept the World Series team together (Kaz & Fogg). So Mr. O'Dowd, when you say players weren't playing for the team, does that go for the front office as well? Because I don't remember hearing about any front office personel taking a pay cut, or say they were willing to make less than fair market price when it comes to the "betterment of the team." For you to go on TV & defend yourself & the club for what I believe is a sham of a trade...wow, we must have hit a nerve.

It's not just this move folks...this is merely another in a long line of salary/talent dumping. This is the first time they've come out & defended themselves, however.
November 17, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Hey LockeRobster,

Answer please.

Are the Rockies cutting their payroll? Are the Rockies now a better team without Holliday?

If you answer "no" and "yes" to those questions, you really are drinking the cheap Kool-Aide the Beef Bros are selling you out of Cheap Field.

Bottom line is the Rockies were too cheap to pay Holliday $13 million for this year and the only reason they are trying to trade Atkins is his $4 million is too high for management. Holliday wanted a longterm contract. Four years is not longterm.

I can also tell you that this team will not spend the money they saved on Holliday on lets say a viable starting pitcher. Well of course not. Arms cost money and the Rockies won't pay the money to add a starter this team so desperately needs. And quit calling them a small market team. They are not.

As for Smith, he is Franklin Morales without a blazing heater. If the Rockies didn't learn last year they can't win by walking people, one of the highest walk ratios for a staff last year, then they really are fools.

Lets add another pitcher that walks a lot of runners to a staff that walks too many already. Lets take our best power hitter out of the lineup. This is a recipe for a long season.

Generation R = Rebuilding Every Year!!!!

By the way, let's see what Bean comes up with when he trades Holliday midseason. I bet it will be for a lot more than an unproven outfielder, a pitcher who had one of the worst records in the majors last year and a former All-Star closer. The Rox were Robbed Locke by the guy dubbed MoneyBall.
November 17, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

FreeToChoose writes:

MVP5:
The Rockies will be a better team in 2010 because of this trade... because if you believe the Rockies could have signed Holliday BEFORE he entered free agency, then you are NOT looking at the track record of Boras clients. They couldn't compete in 2009 WITH Holliday (being so pitching deficient), they can still bid for him in the fall of 2009 and now they have 3 MLB-ready players as well!
So they save $13.5m in 2009!?!?!? So what!?!?!?! That;s not cheap... that's smart!
November 17, 2008

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

arvada_mark writes:

Bottom line, they need to quit using the city of Denver as their patsy...their excuse for failure. They aren't winning, & they blame the market. They didn't buy the New York Rockies, they bought the club in Denver. So they knew from day one they couldn't afford to be competitive, yet they still blew enough smoke up our you know whats to get us to support this club with undying devotion. And now that we have called them on their lying, they feel they need to remind us that this is our fault since we all live in Denver. Well, that is why I am taking the money I would normally spend on the Rox over the coarse of a summer & blow it on a team that wants to win. I'm actually thinking of wearing my Angels jerseys at the A when to Rox visit out there. I'll still get to see the Rox for a 3 game set (still love Tulo & Hawper), while supporting a team that is willing to do what it takes to win (they even cut beer prices last year...Mr. Moreno makes me as a Rox fan jealous). A long weekend in L.A., maybe a stop over in Vegas, yeah, that's about how much money I'd normally spend on the Rox, maybe even a few hundred less.
November 17, 2008

11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Free,

Glad that you also have thrown in the towel for 2009. Again, I am not talking about the Holliday trade. I am talking about the front office and their decision to dump salaries in general. With a suspect pitching staff and a major hole in their lineup, especailly after Atkins is traded, 2010 looks to be worse than 2009.

And by the way, saving $13 million is cheap when they could go out and try to improve the team through a pitcher or a proven hitter by spending that money. That is cheap. It is money they would rather save then spend to improve the team.

You even write that they are pitcher difcient. Well, they just traded their best player and they still are pitching deficient. Why? Because arms that win games cost money, which the Rockies have shown all too well they won't spend.

When Atkins is traded, do you think they spend $17 million to improve the 2009 ballclub? No way. The reason? They are cheap?

Lets go sign the "Kip Wells, Mark Redmans and the Kevin Towers" of the world to bolster the rotation again. If that is not being cheap, I don't know what is.

Bid on Holliday? Did you forget the Rockies motto: "We don't give out longterm contracts or pay market value to players we no longer can control.blah, blah, blah..."

And tell me Free, with Atkins and Holliday gone, what two players are going to account for 200 RBI next season and in 2010?

The same pitching staff and Holliday and Atkins gone will result in one long season next year.
November 17, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

SDcat writes:

I've been mulling this for a week now. I live in San Diego and after the Holliday debacle, threats of trading Atkins, Torrealba, and WillyT, not resigning BFuentes,(coupled with losing Kaz and Fogg...(btw arvada_mark, I thought I was the only person on the planet who thought that was a mistake, glad to know I'm not), I've seriously considered rooting for the Padres. But now looking at what the Pads are doing, is exactly the same as the Rox. They won't sign Trevor Hoffmann, talks of trading Peavy, Kahlil Greene and Adrian Gonzalez. Its nuts!! These are not baseball people, they are rich boyz who owns teams because it seems cool, ( I guess). They can't be good baseball people because you are trading away franchise players, its crazy!! It breaks my heart as a loyal Rox fan here in San Diego to listen to Padres fans laugh about how we got screwed and how relieved they are that they don't have to pitch with Holliday in mind anymore.... pretty sad.
November 17, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"From what I can gather, & I've never found anything that specifically states what they pull (they are too scared to let that one out), but I'm thinking the Brothers Monfort are making roughly $40mil per season. So, who were you calling greedy? "

So you have NOTHING but speculation, ZERO in the way of evidence, and then you condemn them as greedy. That's sure a rational way to go about things.

"And quit calling them a small market team. They are not."

You're going to have to tell me what determines a small market from a large market, then. I ran the numbers a few months ago, back when I thought they weren't really a small market team, too. Here's what I found:

If every team in MLB sold out every single one of its home games, the Rockies, based on published average ticket prices and stadium capacities, would have the 18th highest income )from the gate) in MLB. The teams on either side of them would be Oakland and Minnesota. Those numbers are available on the Net. Do the math for yourself, because I don't expect you to believe me on my own say-so. So, if you want to get picky, we'll call them a mid-market team, but they're definitely below the league average in terms of revenue.

And O'Dowd is starting to fashion this organization like those two, which is a very smart thing to do. The Rockies cannot sport a $100 million payroll. The economics just aren't there. For organizations like this to be competitive every year, there will be a handful top-notch players around whom will be placed various pieces. Some years the pieces will perform very well, and others not so much. And that's the way it is. Very few teams are consistently at or near the top of the standings in MLB.

And you still haven't answered my question from before. Why is that?

And atfisher is dead-on about Gonzalez. This kid has been likened to a young Bobby Abreu, and is already more advanced at 23 than Holliday was at that age.

The Rockies got two players (Smith, Street) who WILL help them in 2009 (either on the field or through a trade), and another who will be ready either late next year or at the start of 2010.
November 17, 2008

6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Halosfan777 writes:

Gonzalez does have talent and i think it will pan out. anyway mr moreno does have a talented ballclub but we have some decisions to make ourselves this offseason, such as teixeira, another starter, a closer! but looks like we all have some decisions.
November 18, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

kilpatrick88 writes:

Anyone else think Holliday is OVERRATED? Sure, at 5280 feet, he has a good stick (which is all that seems to matter anymore), but he is a poor defensive player and is mediocore at best running bases. He consistently misjudges balls in the air and does not have the speed to make up for his mistakes.

I realize salaries in sports are relative, but the idea this guy turned down an extension of $18,000,000 per year is absolutely nauseating!

Bye Bye Holliday, GO ROCKS!
November 18, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

arvada_mark writes:

Actually, I do have evidence, there is just nothing that states it in black & white terms becasue the Brothers Monfort are too scared to let us know what they pull, so we have to do our own math. Now, as proof, I'm going to use your method & tell you to look it up yourself...sounds stupid doesn't it? Yes, they are greedy, & you are plain dumb to think they give 2 doo-doos about this city or whether or not we have a championship baseball team. They want your gate money & then for you to shut up & accept that they refuse to put a winner on the field. We did good one year, & they first thing they do, they start to dimantle the team saying we're shooting for 2012 now. Well, I was here in 1993 when they were shooting for 1998. I was here in 1998 when they said they were shooting for 2004. Since you like being lied to & stolen from , you may now be their #1 fan. I've already started wearing my Rockies hat with an X covering the team logo. I get stopped probably 5 or 6 times a day on the street...and not one person has disagreed with me so far. I know more & more people that are boycotting the Rox due to their cheapness over the past several years. We've had it. It's not just this move, it's things like not keeping the World Series team together...letting Vinny go...letting Neifi go...B-Fuent...the way they handled Chacon after he was an All-Star starter...the fact that they blew the '06 draft becasue they didn't want to try to sign Longoria or Lincicum. So people can do what they want, but me, my friends & family, this will be the first time in well over 30 years that we won't attend any professional baseball games in Denver. It's sad, baseball is life...and now I have to support an out of market team because my team refuses to do what it takes to be competitive.
November 18, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

LockeRobster,

Glad you realize this team is a mid-market. So it is too much to expect that they act like it? Cutting a $69 million payroll does not sound like a mid-market team to me, especially when attendance was up this past year. I applaud you for sticking up for a cheap ownership. All they have proven is a willingness to get by on the cheap and let us fans pick up the major league tab for what has been AAA baseball on the field except for a 21 out of 22 thrill ride! Taken as a whole this team is a below .500 organization. The Beef Bros and you seem to be the only ones who enjoy finishing below .500 every year. Please Charlie and Richard, sell the team before there is no one left at Cheap Field to turn off the lights. Well, no LockeRobster would still be there. ArvadaMark is right. Do you not want to win? As a fan, it comes down to winning and I don't think the Beef Bros could spell it if you spotted them the "W" and the "N". Winning is such a foreign concept or should I say not important to the Beef Bros when it comes to dollars and cents.
November 19, 2008

5:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:

Atfisher...

You can quote MINOR LEAGUE statistics all you want....But that doesnt mean squat at the BIG LEAGUE LEVEL...So what if "Cargo" had better stats than Holliday in the minors....My question to you is what has he done at THE SHOW other than make a few appearances for teams who are desperate for big league sluggers, and yet they turn around and trade him.....

Gonzalez has been hyped for about 4 or 5 years as the next potential star...Arizona tried him and then traded him in the Haren deal...Oakland tried him and then traded him in the Holliday deal...

No, what it appears to be with Gonzalez, is that he is enticing enough to perhaps be a star player, but may never develop...So teams like Arizona and Oakland use him as trade bait....Why would they do that if they thought he was close to having that breakout season??? Because they probably figured he was a long term project who may or may not pan out....Thus, I classify him in that underachieving category, which is not what the Rockies need....He has yet to figure out big league pitching and has a huge amount of strikeouts....not a good sign.....

Gonzalez will get his chance in Colorado because management is so desperate to get something to justify the Holliday deal....He may very well have a breakout season in Colorado. However, I am skeptical...I still classify him as underachieving, and will do so untill he has a couple of consistent seasons where he lives up to his ability.....
November 19, 2008

5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:

The Colorado Rockies will be the "ultimate" feeder organization for other MLB teams....

Cases in point...

Holliday...Gone
Fuentes...Gone
Atkins......Soon to be Gone
Hawpe.....Probably gone when contract expires
Francis....Same story as Hawpe

Others will follow...

Question: How can the Rockies possibly build a consistent winner??

Answer: THEY CANT...Not with their current policies

It wont change....Its inevitable....

Holliday was right...He sees the future with the Rockies and it doesnt look good...

Rockies fans deserve better....

Case closed....
November 19, 2008

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

blm69 writes:

Player Salaries function like any other market -- up and down. A-rod's salary is like buying gas for five bucks a gallon. It may happen once in a while, but we all know that it will come down to the historical value with normal inflation. Fat payrolls don't always mean success (08 mariners and yankees) Pedroia won the MVP making the league minimum. I think that instead of blowing 20 million on a player that could go sour after signing a long term deal, the money should go to the draft, scouting, and developing young players. Holliday will never repeat the numbers he put up in '07. Furthermore, in the post steroid HGH era, players have not proven that there numbers will not decline after age 34. Boras is greedy, he also has a way of mind controlling his clients. Holliday was never the same after he signed with Boras. Holliday will regret not taking the Rockies deal. He'll sign a big deal with another team and his Coors field numbers will be cut down significantly. The fans will turn against him for all the money that the team is spending on him.
November 19, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

ColoradoSportsFaninTexas writes:

blm69...Agreed...Salaries will go up and down, and eventually settle to a level....Then the market will sort itself out....As for Holliday, I am not sure he will end up regretting not signing with the Rockies....Personally, I see him doing well in Oakland, and then hit the free agent market the following year....He will probably end up in Yankee pinstripes, or perhaps in Boston where he will bash about 35-40 HR's, with about 120 RBI's...He probably will be playing well into October, and end up being the Series MVP.....All with the entire Rockies nation watching, and wondering...what if......
November 19, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Question: How can the Rockies possibly build a consistent winner??

Answer: THEY CANT...Not with their current policies"

The Twins and A's have been consistently in the mix the last several years using the exact same model that the Rockies are attempting to implement. I think it may take a bit, but they appear to be heading that way, to me.
November 20, 2008

1:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

troopermsu writes:

Scott Boras works for Matt Holliday - not the other way around. If Matt really wanted to be a Rockie he would have instructed Boras to work it out.

I think the real question is why didn't Holliday want to remain a Rockie? In my view, it's because he can see that the cupboard is truly bare in the minors and the organization is not truly committed to putting a winning team on the field.

This is not a small market! They draw huge crowds for quality baseball.

The Monforts know there is an attendance level that will always be there. These ticket buyers consist of: general baseball fans who just like baseball and are not big Rockie fans; fans of other teams ie St Louis, Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox etc; people that like to pay a large cover to drink warm, flat beer; and actual Rockies fans.

The Monforts also know the exact payroll at which, given the lowest possible attendance level, they will turn a profit.

Do the Monforts deserve to run their business as they see fit and turn a profit? Yes - to a certain extent. Because they have enormous public subsidies (Coors Field). No public support through taxes to build that stadium - no franchise in Denver. They owe it to the public to give an honest effort in building a winner. Otherwise, why field a team in a competitive sport. If it was just about the entertainment value then they could simply put on 81 exhibition games each summer. Winning has to count for something.

While the Monforts should not be expected to run huge financial losses every year, we should not be expected to support a mediocre operation.

Only two things can happen that can possibly move the Rockies to get better. 1) New ownership with major-league resources willing to put up with an occasional financial loss in order to produce winning baseball. 2) A precipitous drop in attendance that would force the Monforts to offer a better product to attract ticket buyers.

Chance of either of these things happening in the near future? Less than 1%.

Get used to it Rockie fans. This team will always be mediocre.
November 20, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

kilpatrick88 writes:

Still waiting for someone to counter my argument. Holliday is OVERRATED, for all the reasons I listed above. Again, this chump turned down 18,000,000 a year x 4years !!!!

When is the insanity going to end?! Shouldn't you have to be a COMPLETE player to justify a salary like that?
November 20, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"This is not a small market! They draw huge crowds for quality baseball."

If the crowds are large but the per-ticket prices are low, then the take at the gate is in the middle (where the Rockies are). Their average ticket price is about $19, and I'm willing to bet that the people who claim this is a "big market" would seriously balk if they started charging "big market" prices - $30 or so on average. If they did, attendance would go down and their take at the gate would drop, putting them in the same place they are right now in terms of revenue.

Crowd size is NOT indicative of revenue. Fenway Park is one of the smallest stadiums in MLB, but the Red Sox have the highest average ticket price and are therefore among the highest revenue teams in MLB. You have to look at the entire economic picture, not just a small slice.
November 21, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Locke,

You are right, that ticket prices are low compared with other teams. What you have wrong is turning a profit at the expense of signing cheap young players and continueing to do so at the rate that the Rockies will be rebuilding every couple of years. The "C" and the "R" on the cap means Continous Rebuilding!

Take a look at this Forbes special report. The Rockies are 8th in the majors in operating income. Check out the link below Robster.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/b...

In the grand scheme of things, major league salaries are outrageous but that is the market that has been set for these players. Don't fault Holliday for testing out his worth on the free agent market. Do fault the Rockies though for their head in the sand motto they have taken for not even trying to pay market value for major league players they can't control. I still have to laugh at all of you who think that offering a player like Matt Holliday a four year deal as a free agent is "credible" or is even close to his market value. The guy is entering his prime and the Rox felt fit to offer only four years. Give me a break. Ryan Dempster just signed a 4 year deal for $52 million and he plays every 5 days and does not even come close to having the impact on a game Holliday does. The Rockies were not even in the neighborhood for Holliday, a perennial All-Star player for years to come. Just face it. This ownership is cheap. They are who they are.
November 21, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

wharfratg writes:

Heh, heh, I love that comment by arvada_mark suggesting that Mr. Moneybags Kroenke would never trade away a star player without receiving good value. My, how soon we forget Marcus Camby. The most obvious salary dump in Denver in quite a while.

If you guys think the Rockies have deficient ownership because they lose their star players to bigger market teams, why don't you just look at the smaller market model everyone drools over--Oakland. Gee, how many star players have they traded or lost in free agency over the years? How 'bout all of them?

If you expect the Rockies to pay whatever it takes to keep their team intact from year to year, why don't you just start rooting for the Yankees?
November 22, 2008

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

MVP5 - thanks for the link.

Here are some other stats to consider:

In all of MLB, the Rockies are the 21st most-valuable team (same link - and I'm guessing that data must be from 2007 because it's dated 4/16/08).

Their payroll for 2008 was the 20th highest in MLB (right in line with what you'd expect from the 21st team in term of dollar value).

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/salaries

Of the $69 million (give or take) that the Rockies shelled out in 2008 payroll, $16.6 million went to Todd Helton (about 24%). And they are still on the hook to Helton for that much (and more) for three more years, so that has to be taken into account when you are thinking about what is "reasonable" in terms of their payroll. Also, Cook is getting a very nice raise this coming year (from about $5 million up to $10 million, or ALL of the savings from Fuentes leaving). And even if they go to arbitration with Atkins, he's going to get a raise from around $4 million in 2008 to at least $6-6.5 million for 2009 (if not slightly more).

The Rockies turned a proft of just over $26 million in 2007. Of that, how much do you think came from the last two months of the season when they went on that historic run and wound up in the World Series? Do you think it is sensible for the front office to base their payroll assumptions on making the post-season every year? I don't.

The Rockies are already right about where they should be in terms of payroll based on the market in which they are located. And based on contracts already in place, they will be increasing that payroll going forward (even with Holliday deciding not to stay).

The plain fact of the matter remains that the contract they gave Helton is killing them right now in terms of flexibility (as did the contracts to Hampton and Neagle - all of which were wildly applauded at the time because of what those players had done recently). And that contract of Helton's is almost exactly what most of you thought they should offer Holliday. Yet you all sit back and talk about "no one put a gun to their head and FORCED them to make that offer to Helton", but then when they demonstrate they learned their lesson and refuse to make a similar offer to Holliday, you lambast them for it.

That's just ridiculous.
November 24, 2008

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Locke,

Yes, the Helton contract is now hurting the Rockies. The contracts to Neagle and Hampton also were not good for the team. What I do find disheartening is the Rockies are not a free-agent player for a Holliday-caliber player. Their offer was not a good faith effort. It was a low-ball offer. It was not a legitimate offer. They didn't want to offer him anything longterm because they have decided longterm contracts are not part of their business model. They can basically use this excuse to be cheap. Well, signing players longterm is a gamble. Sometimes they don't work out and other times they do. The Rockies can just tell the fans well we can't be a player for an All-Star free agent because we don't offer longterm contracts. That is what irks me the most. What free agent is going to want to sign with Colorado if all they offer is four year contracts? It a joke. Management is not in favor of trying to win. It still amazes me that O'Dowd and Hurdle still have their jobs. Clearly, this team is in rebuilding mode so why not make a fresh start and send Dealing Dan and Hurdle packing. It might not do any good though because the next GM will be a "yes" man for the Beef Bros anyway and make that person scrimp by with a low budget for players.
And by the way, the $13 million the Beef Bros have saved on Holliday will not be spent to improve this team. It will be pocketed. That is why the trade was a salary dump. If it wasn't a salary dump, then why didn't the Rockies get a proven position player? I'll tell you why. The Rockies are decreasing their payroll instead of improving the team. I for one am tired of this team signing players no one else wants. Kip Wells, Kevin Towers and Glendon Rusch anyone?
November 24, 2008

6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"Yes, the Helton contract is now hurting the Rockies. The contracts to Neagle and Hampton also were not good for the team."

"They didn't want to offer him anything longterm because they have decided longterm contracts are not part of their business model."

Based on recent history, can you honestly blame them for NOT wanting to offer long-term deals?

Part of the problem with baseball is the way the union totally controls things. The guaranteed contracts these guys sign put ALL the risk on ownership and ZERO risk on the players, many of whom sign huge deals and then underperform (Helton, Hampton, Neagle) in a huge way.

I also fail to see why the Rockies' offer to Holliday continues to be referred to as "cheap" or "low-ball". The fact remains that had Matt signed the deal put in front of him this past spring he would have been the 6th highest paid player in MLB this season, and among the top 10 for the next three (depending on what happens with other free agents). He would have been financially set for life, with a LOT of room to spare, and he would have been 33 at the end of that contract, leaving open the possibility of at least one more nice contract at the end of that deal.

"What free agent is going to want to sign with Colorado if all they offer is four year contracts?"

Watch what happens with most free agents this year. My bet is that 4-5 years is going to be the absolute max (excepting Sabathia and Teixeira). The days of the 7-8 year deals are over, because so many players fail to live up to the money over time. Because those deals are guaranteed too many teams get hamstrung by agreeing to them, so they are no longer handing them out.

The fact that Holliday had made it clear that he wasn't going to sign that 4-year offer in no way makes it illegitimate. What are the Rockies supposed to do? Just give every player every dollar he asks for?

If you want to bang on the Monforts for squeezing every dime out of this franchise that they can, why not also reserve a similar amount of vitriol for Holliday and his obvious greed? Because the fact remains that the offer made to him was imminently fair, and he could have accepted it and remained here HAD HE WANTED TO. All his comments about wanting to stay here are dwarfed by his desire to make $20-22 million per season instead of $18 million. Poor baby. I feel so bad for him trying to support his family on that little bit of pocket change.
November 25, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Again Locke,

You miss the point. This is not about Holliday. This is about the Rockies who continue to be cheap. The Holliday trade was a salary dump and I am tired of it. No, four years is not longterm so I won't blame Holliday for not taking it. And I am so tired of you bringing up the Twins. They even get it by signing their All Star Justin Morneau to a SIX year contract worth $80 million. Heck they gave Mauer $33 million for 4 years when they didn't have to. They could have just done the ole Rockie playbook and let it go to arbitration. The Rockies front office is a joke. To say, they wont give out longterm contracts again is a pretty shallow way to run a baseball team. It is utterly ridiculous. I bet the Beef Bros are happy there is not a salary cap in baseball because then they would be forced to spend the money. And lets just bring up this point, Torri Hunter signed a 5 year $90 million deal with the Angels. Holliday is by far better than Hunter. So what gives? Well it is the Rockies being cheap with one of their best players to ever come out of their system. And by the way, the Rockies did not get a proven player out of the deal for Holliday because proven players cost money. They would rather get a washed-up closer, a pitcher who walks too many batters and an outfielder that is all hype. Is it just me, but this CarGone kid might have some problems if two teams have given up on him in a matter of a year. The Beef Bros are the problem. I am glad you continue to enjoy watching below .500 baseball. And by the way, those longterm contracts the Rockies gave out where when McMorris was at the helm, not the cheap Beef Bros. Had the Rockies offered Holliday five or six years then I would put more blame on Holliday. But four years is a joke and the blame lies with the cheap front office. You seem like a smart person Locke. Would you take a job for four years or wait for a job that could pay you more and for longer? Um, what would you do? Pretty simple really. Its a no-brainer.
November 25, 2008

7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

Ok, I guess the question that needs to be answered is:

What payroll level SHOULD the Rockies be at? What would satisfy you as a fan?
November 26, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

MVP5 writes:

Locke,

I expect a team that was in the World Series two years ago to try to win and stay competitive. This year's payroll purge is an indication the Rockies could care less about winning or trying to build off two years ago. They would rather implode the roster and start over, AGAIN. Check this out:

20 (25) Rockies $68,655,500 $54,424,000 $14,231,500

The $68 million is 2008 and the $54 million is 2007. By getting rid of Holliday, $13 million, and when Atkins is traded, $4 million, the Rockies will be back to a payroll somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million. I don't expect the Rockies to go out and spend $100 million on payroll but I also don't expect for the Rockies to be outspent by the likes of the Brewers, $71 million in 2008, Reds, $74 million, and Indians, $78 million.

Here is the source:

http://blog.sportscolumn.com/story/20...

The Rockies are as bad as they ever have been in this so called Generation R. No Holliday. A hurt and old Helton. Atkins is going to be traded. Two new starters in the outfield. A mess at second base and a pitching staff that doesn't have a viable number 1 or 2 starter. Plus, this team does not have a proven closer. All this adds up to is their continued commitment to being a below .500 organization. Relying on Hawpe, Stewart and Iannetta to drive in runs is a huge gamble now that Holliday and Atkins will be out of the lineup. Simply amazing. What would satisfy me is the Rockies putting a product on the field that has a chance to win. There is no reason for me to believe they will be better next year with the moves they have made.
November 26, 2008

2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

LockeRobster writes:

"I don't expect the Rockies to go out and spend $100 million on payroll but I also don't expect for the Rockies to be outspent by the likes of the Brewers, $71 million in 2008, Reds, $74 million, and Indians, $78 million."

Keep in mind, there are significant raises coming for a few players this year and in years after that (Cook and Tulo among those getting significant pay increases either this year or next).

"A hurt and old Helton."

As much as anything, I think that contract with Helton has them gun-shy. And with good reason. Contracts is MLB are guaranteed, and teams hav no real recourse if they sign a player to a huge, long-term deal and then that guy either gets hurt or his production falls of significantly. There are teams in MLB than can survice such errors, but the Rockies just aren't among them.

"What would satisfy me is the Rockies putting a product on the field that has a chance to win. There is no reason for me to believe they will be better next year with the moves they have made."

I think that may be hard to judge over the winter like this. First of all, we have no idea what the Smith kid is capable of, but he put up really good numbers last year as a rookie. And Street has been a 30-save closer before, and showed at the end of last year what he's still capable of when he's healthy. He will either be traded, serve as insurance to Corpas, or be dealt to a team in need of a closer, in which case the evaluation of the Holliday deal would have to be altered again. The outfielder they got looks like he's bound for AAA for 2009, so we'll just have to wait a bit to see what happens there.

Atkins, as you say, is likely to be traded. There is a good market for guys who play 3B and can hit, and I think there's a good chance that the Rockies could get every bit as much for him as they did fr Holliday. There are two teams in particular (Angels, White Sox) who are in the market for a 3B and that have excess starting pitching to trade.

All that said, I think it is pretty much impossible to have much of a clue about what the 2009 Rockies are g

Breaking News:

Home › Sports › Sports Columns & Blogs

RINGOLSBY: Holliday a no-fault divorce

By Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News

Published November 13, 2008 at 7:07 p.m.

First pitch

More Sports Columns & Blogs

Comments

Breaking News:

Home › Sports › Sports Columns & Blogs

RINGOLSBY: Holliday a no-fault divorce

By Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News

Published November 13, 2008 at 7:07 p.m.

First pitch

More Sports Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments