Monfort on the fate of Clint, Dan, and Todd - Page 5

RMF · January 29th, 2007, 04:38 PM

We appear to be straying from the Helton trade and into idealogical differences. Or at least what posters think are idealogical differences.

Aspire, even if we develop said Stars who do we pair them with? Monfort won't pay to complement them, and Monfort won't pay to keep them. He's already screamed at Jennings, Atkins, Holliday for wanting fair market $$$. Rockies have already assembled a lot of good young talent. To expect them to add quite a bit more cheap MLB ready talent without giving up anything seems unrealistic. They've brought the club to an acceptable level internally. Ownership needs to step up and take us to the next level and allow us to win. It doesn't have to be a spree. It would need to be a smart calculated risk. The fact that this hasn't been allowed in 06 or 07 is somewhat disturbing.

If it doesn't happen in 08/09 then you can assume that Charlie Monfort is hands down the worst owner in baseball.

I think the most you can expect from any good General is to concentrate your forces at their strongest while your opponents are at their weakest. Rockies had that opportunity last season and this offseason. This franchise has a fundamental problem.

Our current strategy for winning the division seems to be predicated on luck.

Helton, Atkins, Holliday, Iannetta, Tulowitzki,

BigRapidsJackass · January 29th, 2007, 04:48 PM

The Twins and A's aren't the best comparisons.

The Marlins are.

That's the situation this club is in now: Marlins c. 2005.

A good deal of talent with excellent trade value, and absolutely no commitment to even reaching a league-average payroll.

The Marlins weren't incredibly lucky in their deals. They got absolute blue chip prospects who were knocking at the door of their respective major league teams.

That's why I suggested that a "shoot for '09" strategy wouldn't be outrageous. If you made a few good deals like the Marlins before last season, you might find yourself with a better shot at the playoffs in '10 than you have today by keeping everyone in place.

What's the alternative? A struggle to reach .500 (probably finishing last several more years in a row with 70-77 wins), letting JJ and Helton go this year, Cook and Fuentes next year, Holliday in '09, Atkins in '10, Francis in '11, and never keeping a core of players long enough to complement the new arrivals like Morales, Stewart, Tulo, Iannetta, Jimenez ...

Roxpert · January 29th, 2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

The system has built in advantages toward young talent that is DRASTICALLY under-valued. You get high performance on the field that is at significantly reduced rates compared to the market prices.

Absolutely correct. However, no MLB GM or owner should believe, in their right minds, that they can cover all of their holes with internal cheap/underpriced talent. It would be delusional for Monfort (or any owner) to think we can sustain success, or even mediocrity, with a purely internal pipeline of cheap talent.

Quote:

Forget needing X amount of dollars. Why always the focus on some required number?? The number alone is so extremely meaningless.

Why focus on some "meaningless" or "arbitrary" dollar figure such as $80 million? First of all, it's not meaningless. $80 million happens to be darn close to the MLB median payroll for 2007. Assuming an average efficiency of spending such a budget, and an average stock of undervalued young players, $80 million should give any franchise a fighting chance.

The way Monfort is doing business does not give us that fighting chance. At least not on any sort of sustained basis. And, no, I'm not saying $80 million equals winning team. I'm saying competitive payrolls, combined with good cheap young talent and a pipeline from a strong farm system equals a FIGHTING chance at being a competitive team, year in and year out.

TheIncredibleRox · January 29th, 2007, 05:00 PM

Good idea, Jackass! (hey man, you call yourself that, it's gonna happen

)

But seriously though, that's something I'd never thought of, and it's incredibly intriguing; can you imagine the glut of talent we could receive for some of our players?

Atkins, Holliday, Cook, Francis would have tremendous trade value right now. Each could fetch 2 Tulo-type (or better) prospects, and a Manny Corpas kicker.

Add that to what's already a very promising farm system (Ianetta, Tulo, Stewart, Jimenez, Morillo, Fowler, Morales).

Christ, I think we'd make the Marlins' current glut of under-25 talent look downright bush-league.

Roxpert · January 29th, 2007, 05:05 PM

I say "JUST SAY NO" to the 2009/2011 plan. The Marlins could be excused by their fans since they won their 2nd World Series in 2003, and then reloaded. Why should we reload? Have we won anything recently?

At some point, a team with a good young nucleus (which we have) MUST try to compete for a division title. We have been out of the "competing business" (as Sandy Clough likes to say) since June of 2001.

It's time for Monfort & Co. to put up or shut up. They have to try to win this year or (more likely) 2008, or they don't belong in this business. I hereby VETO any idea of restocking our farm system now!

TheIncredibleRox · January 29th, 2007, 05:20 PM

Roxpert,

It would never happen; the Rockies aren't that bold or that clever.

But they're not bold or clever enough to make the investment that will be needed in the next 18 months either.

As sick as you would be of imploding our current GenR crop and becoming a .410 team for the next year or two, I'd much rather do that and set ourselves up for a run than watch a .480 team every year and pray for a ridiculous "perfect storm" of career seasons and Pythag luck.

Heltonfan · January 29th, 2007, 05:26 PM

Obviously, TIR is right that this sort of thing will never happen. But it's fun to think about anyway...

The crucial difference between the Marlins' situation last winter and ours right now is that the guys the Marlins gave up were all in their second year of arbitration or later. They dealt Beckett and the veterans, but they didn't deal Dontrelle or Cabrera. Holliday, Atkins, and Francis all have three or more years left in this organization, if we want them; they can be core members of the '09 team, the very year that we'd be trying to build for according to this plan.

So, if we're building for '09, trading those guys is a terrible idea. It's probably not even a good idea for 2010, because even "Tulo-type prospects" can't be expected to be above-average big leaguers in their pre-arb years. I can't deny that I like the idea of hoarding prospects like no team ever has, but I couldn't recommend a strategy that involves weakening ourselves for almost half a decade.

hiaspire · January 29th, 2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Aspire, even if we develop said Stars who do we pair them with?

However, no MLB GM or owner should believe, in their right minds, that they can cover all of their holes with internal cheap/underpriced talent.

And where the heck did I say prospects only and nothing else??!?! Nowhere do I ever say you can't add pieces to the puzzle otherwise. In fact, quite the opposite. I've only opposed to the one-track money-mindedness where one financial figure is absolutely critical when trying to build a team, and I have clearly mentioned needing to supplement to fill gaps several times down their internal path. But I have my focus AWAY from needing to spend and more on TALENT (where it belongs IMO) as the top priority internally with supplemental additions build around that when they are going to make the biggest difference. Not the other way around where the money figure is the key to everything.

And the Marlins are an excellent example. I would agree that the Rox wouldn't have done something like that before, but with them being open to moving Helton now for prospects and falling in love with the inexpensive young talent hope... I'm not so sure they won't try to go down that path here now at some point (if they haven't already to some degree). It wouldn't really be clever or bold by copying someone else's plan, but they easily could conclude it fits their survival best.

I've compared the Rox and Fish several times myself over the years in such discussions, and the big difference is that the Fish go all out down a plan and do things that make an IMPACT and the Rox do things half-way that doesn't really ever amount to much or change direction/plan along the way. At least now we are somewhat commited to something, even if our own statements contradict each other constantly from moment to moment down the current path for trying to win this year but this also being the only time we'd ever deal one of our best players for nothing of MLB help.

DEAL DEAD?

Last word was the Monfort said the Sox wouldn't budge in giving more talent to us and that the deal is dead. Better be at these rates. And for Todd's sanity, it better really be dead and no more wishy-washy indecisive management. Let's put this to bed and let Todd play some ball and re-establish his value -- either to us as an improving young team that could use his stability, or his trade value once he's back to himself a bit more.

Roxpert · January 29th, 2007, 06:59 PM

Where are you seeing that Monfort quote? I haven't seen the "Deal Dead?" story yet. Link, please.

Just as you are feigning outrage at saying you didn't just mean prospects, you immediately misrepresent my position as a "one-track money mind". That's innacurate and insulting. I've explained my multi-faceted model to you numerous times, and I'm not going to do it again. Develop, grow, spend.......There, that should be an explanation sufficient to end this dumb debate.

hiaspire · January 29th, 2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Where are you seeing that Monfort quote? I haven't seen the "Deal Dead?" story yet. Link, please.

I thought people went to RotoWorld for news these days.

Quote:

Rockies owner Charlie Monfort said the Todd Helton trade talks with the Red Sox are now dead. "It didn’t work out," said Monfort. "When you are taking about a player of Todd Helton’s abilities, you need to get someone back who will be an impact player, and it didn’t work out."

It's best for both sides. The Red Sox didn't need to take on a declining first baseman for five years, and the Rockies weren't going to help themselves by paying another team $8 million per year for Helton to play for them. The Rockies may have a better chance of getting real value at the trade deadline or next winter if Helton can bounce back. In the meantime, they'll be able to keep using the excuse that they can't win with one player accounting for 30 percent of the payroll. The Rockies aren't a small-market team. That the revenues aren't there right now is strictly a result of bad management. Things are looking up for the organization as a whole, but Dan O'Dowd and Clint Hurdle aren't the people to take the team past the brink of contention. If the Rockies want to signal the beginning of a new era, they can do so by finding new management, not by trading one of the game's best OBP guys.
Source: Rocky Mountain News

rockieprogress · January 29th, 2007, 07:22 PM

I haven't seen that either.

hi, got a link, or did you see him on TV?

Roxpert · January 29th, 2007, 07:39 PM

A bluff by our owner? Sometimes, deals have to be declared "dead" for them to really come to life.

indianadrew · January 29th, 2007, 07:53 PM

KnoxNews: Baseball

here is an interesting article from knoxville. it says the rockies owe helton a trade.

from a writer at the rocky mountain news!

hiaspire · January 29th, 2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

A bluff by our owner? Sometimes, deals have to be declared "dead" for them to really come to life.

They certainly can. I would hope it isn't so much as a "dead deal" as it is a big NO THANKS to their crappy offer. Come back to us with something real and then we may talk again. The Red Sox fan base is generally getting pretty jazzed about that -- along with Schilling and Beckett and others in the clubhouse. Maybe the BoSox get the message that they can't steal us blind and counter with an improved offer to make this reality for the fans/players/management that was starting to get excited about it there.

About the Rox owing Helton a trade... if he wanted one to go to a contender, I'd probably agree. He hasn't thus far, though. Another season in the toilet, though, and seeing the Red Sox advance to the playoffs where he could have easily been and maybe he starts thinking otherwise and expresses that interest. But he's about as loyal as an organization could possibly hope for their franchise player. If he's fine staying, and they are fine (or were) with him part of their plans, then he's not really owed anything he doesn't want. Both sides of that may be changing before our eyes this off-season, though.

BigRapidsJackass · January 29th, 2007, 08:48 PM

Well, that was fun while it lasted.

You've got to wonder why the Rockies --- and by all accounts it was the Rockies, not the Red Sox -- leaked the trade talks to the press. What was to be gained? Did they really think that fan reaction would be positive?

It resembles nothing more than last year's Manny Ramirez trade circus. It seems like the Rockies and Red Sox do have something in common after all.

January 29th, 2007, 04:38 PM	#61 (permalink)
RMF Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 206	Straying from Helton We appear to be straying from the Helton trade and into idealogical differences. Or at least what posters think are idealogical differences. Aspire, even if we develop said Stars who do we pair them with? Monfort won't pay to complement them, and Monfort won't pay to keep them. He's already screamed at Jennings, Atkins, Holliday for wanting fair market $$$. Rockies have already assembled a lot of good young talent. To expect them to add quite a bit more cheap MLB ready talent without giving up anything seems unrealistic. They've brought the club to an acceptable level internally. Ownership needs to step up and take us to the next level and allow us to win. It doesn't have to be a spree. It would need to be a smart calculated risk. The fact that this hasn't been allowed in 06 or 07 is somewhat disturbing. If it doesn't happen in 08/09 then you can assume that Charlie Monfort is hands down the worst owner in baseball. I think the most you can expect from any good General is to concentrate your forces at their strongest while your opponents are at their weakest. Rockies had that opportunity last season and this offseason. This franchise has a fundamental problem. Our current strategy for winning the division seems to be predicated on luck. Helton, Atkins, Holliday, Iannetta, Tulowitzki,

January 29th, 2007, 07:53 PM	#73 (permalink)
indianadrew Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: indianapolis Posts: 698	KnoxNews: Baseball here is an interesting article from knoxville. it says the rockies owe helton a trade. from a writer at the rocky mountain news! Last edited by indianadrew; January 29th, 2007 at 07:57 PM.

January 29th, 2007, 04:48 PM	#62 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,175	The Twins and A's aren't the best comparisons. The Marlins are. That's the situation this club is in now: Marlins c. 2005. A good deal of talent with excellent trade value, and absolutely no commitment to even reaching a league-average payroll. The Marlins weren't incredibly lucky in their deals. They got absolute blue chip prospects who were knocking at the door of their respective major league teams. That's why I suggested that a "shoot for '09" strategy wouldn't be outrageous. If you made a few good deals like the Marlins before last season, you might find yourself with a better shot at the playoffs in '10 than you have today by keeping everyone in place. What's the alternative? A struggle to reach .500 (probably finishing last several more years in a row with 70-77 wins), letting JJ and Helton go this year, Cook and Fuentes next year, Holliday in '09, Atkins in '10, Francis in '11, and never keeping a core of players long enough to complement the new arrivals like Morales, Stewart, Tulo, Iannetta, Jimenez ...

January 29th, 2007, 05:00 PM	#64 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 322	Good idea, Jackass! (hey man, you call yourself that, it's gonna happen ) But seriously though, that's something I'd never thought of, and it's incredibly intriguing; can you imagine the glut of talent we could receive for some of our players? Atkins, Holliday, Cook, Francis would have tremendous trade value right now. Each could fetch 2 Tulo-type (or better) prospects, and a Manny Corpas kicker. Add that to what's already a very promising farm system (Ianetta, Tulo, Stewart, Jimenez, Morillo, Fowler, Morales). Christ, I think we'd make the Marlins' current glut of under-25 talent look downright bush-league.

January 29th, 2007, 05:05 PM	#65 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	I say "JUST SAY NO" to the 2009/2011 plan. The Marlins could be excused by their fans since they won their 2nd World Series in 2003, and then reloaded. Why should we reload? Have we won anything recently? At some point, a team with a good young nucleus (which we have) MUST try to compete for a division title. We have been out of the "competing business" (as Sandy Clough likes to say) since June of 2001. It's time for Monfort & Co. to put up or shut up. They have to try to win this year or (more likely) 2008, or they don't belong in this business. I hereby VETO any idea of restocking our farm system now!

January 29th, 2007, 05:20 PM	#66 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 322	Roxpert, It would never happen; the Rockies aren't that bold or that clever. But they're not bold or clever enough to make the investment that will be needed in the next 18 months either. As sick as you would be of imploding our current GenR crop and becoming a .410 team for the next year or two, I'd much rather do that and set ourselves up for a run than watch a .480 team every year and pray for a ridiculous "perfect storm" of career seasons and Pythag luck.

January 29th, 2007, 05:26 PM	#67 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Obviously, TIR is right that this sort of thing will never happen. But it's fun to think about anyway... The crucial difference between the Marlins' situation last winter and ours right now is that the guys the Marlins gave up were all in their second year of arbitration or later. They dealt Beckett and the veterans, but they didn't deal Dontrelle or Cabrera. Holliday, Atkins, and Francis all have three or more years left in this organization, if we want them; they can be core members of the '09 team, the very year that we'd be trying to build for according to this plan. So, if we're building for '09, trading those guys is a terrible idea. It's probably not even a good idea for 2010, because even "Tulo-type prospects" can't be expected to be above-average big leaguers in their pre-arb years. I can't deny that I like the idea of hoarding prospects like no team ever has, but I couldn't recommend a strategy that involves weakening ourselves for almost half a decade.

January 29th, 2007, 06:59 PM	#69 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	Where are you seeing that Monfort quote? I haven't seen the "Deal Dead?" story yet. Link, please. Just as you are feigning outrage at saying you didn't just mean prospects, you immediately misrepresent my position as a "one-track money mind". That's innacurate and insulting. I've explained my multi-faceted model to you numerous times, and I'm not going to do it again. Develop, grow, spend.......There, that should be an explanation sufficient to end this dumb debate.

January 29th, 2007, 07:22 PM	#71 (permalink)
rockieprogress Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: aurora Posts: 183	I haven't seen that either. hi, got a link, or did you see him on TV?

January 29th, 2007, 07:39 PM	#72 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	A bluff by our owner? Sometimes, deals have to be declared "dead" for them to really come to life.

January 29th, 2007, 08:48 PM	#75 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,175	Well, that was fun while it lasted. You've got to wonder why the Rockies --- and by all accounts it was the Rockies, not the Red Sox -- leaked the trade talks to the press. What was to be gained? Did they really think that fan reaction would be positive? It resembles nothing more than last year's Manny Ramirez trade circus. It seems like the Rockies and Red Sox do have something in common after all.