Monfort being too honest....

Roxpert · 02-01-2007, 10:22 PM

Today's Post had an article about our farm system, Matt Holliday, and Monfort's attitude about keeping homegrown players....

DenverPost.com - Stealing home

After reading this, all I can say is that Charlie Monfort needs a handler. He doesn't know what and what not to say to the press. To wit....

Quote:

"People are already saying that we are not staying with homegrown guys (because of the Jason Jennings trade). But when we say we are going to stick with them, that doesn't mean through thick and thin for 12 to 14 years.

"That means you keep them while you can go through arbitration and hope that you have somebody coming behind them to take their place because, quite frankly, in this market we can't afford that. If people want to say that we are a minor-league team for the Yankees and somebody is going to pick Matt off for $14 (million) a year (as a free agent), so be it."

Such a public proclamation of a LACK of commitment to your homegrown players beyond their arbitration years has to be despiriting to not only the fans, but the kids we have nurtured such as Holliday and Atkins. In fact, Matt is quoted as follows in the article....

Quote:

"They have made a pretty strong statement with their payroll," Holliday said. "If the payroll remains status quo, it's clear that logistically some of us aren't going to be around."

So, now Monfort has "exposed himself" as running a "factory of farm-raised meat" that is thrown out once they have aged properly. Hmmm......sounds a lot like that old family business!

Team spirit and morale will surely be helped by this article ---not. Monfort has no intention of keeping the homegrown guys if they get costly, and obviously won't spend to bring in outside help for those guys so they can make a serious run at competing. That's the message he left us with today.

Also, read the reader comments underneath the article. The natives are restless all over Rockieland!

wolf213 · 02-02-2007, 02:43 PM

Sometimes I feel like D'OD needs to duct tape Monfort's mouth shut. His timing couldn't be worse.

After pissing of the casual fan base by attempting to trade Helton, he then comes out the next day and tells the fans not to get attached to any of the young players because where "Poor".

If Monfort was on "The Apprentice" Trump would surely fire his ass in no time. The guy is totally clueless about running a business, and marketing a product, and every time he opens his mouth, it just serves to piss off his customers.

RMF · 02-02-2007, 07:16 PM

You really do have to wonder about Charlie Monfort. He's arguably the worst owner in baseball. He's living in a market that basically gives him a free ride and he's actively antagonizing the fanbase and media. The guy is a clown.

BigRapidsJackass · 02-02-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

So, now Monfort has "exposed himself" as running a "factory of farm-raised meat" that is thrown out once they have aged properly. Hmmm......sounds a lot like that old family business!

Why not do it full Family Style, just like in Greeley: import 25 illegal Guatemalans to do the work!

rockieprogress · 02-03-2007, 02:36 AM

Roxpert, are you asking them to keep every player they develop? That's what I'm reading...

There will be some players they decide to keep, but like the A's, it might not be who you think. They let ALL of the big-3 go, and Tejada to boot.
Yet, Chavez got a contract.

There is no reason to have a well stocked minor-league system, if you're going to keep the Holliday-Atkins-Cook's of the world.
If Cook has a successful season, sign him to a Contract, but if he doesn't progress, then trade him.
Holliday? His value is at its highest, so he'll be gone. You know that.
So let me ask you, should the Rockies not develop any corner OF's because Holliday will be around for 7 more years?
Same with Atkins. Should they just trade Baker and Stewart RIGHT NOW, because Atkins should be signed for 7 more years?

Why spend any money on a minor league system at all.
Why not be like the Giants, and develop a few Pitchers, and bring in old players to fill the holes?

If your opinion is that the A's, who've made the playoffs a lot lately, are nothing more than a meat factory?
Why should their fans stick with them then...

Please don't tell me what the A's spend on their salaries, and make a comparison to what the Rockies spend. I know about that.

Tell me WHY you think the A's are wrong in their approach, and why a similar approach can't work here.

Roxpert · 02-03-2007, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockieprogress

Roxpert, are you asking them to keep every player they develop? That's what I'm reading...

Wrong. Nowhere did I say that. RP, you don't seem to understand the negative connotations of what Monfort said publicly. He, in effect, is telling the team's fans that they shouldn't get too attached to their players since they will likely be gone once they can command large salaries. He is also sending the message to the players that they are being developed and if they produce, then they likely could get their huge payday....with another team! It's not practical to keep every player developed, but it's stupid to send the message to your kids that if they produce, the organization that raised you will likely not be the one that rewards you once you've earned the time needed for market-level contracts.

By his public statements, Monfort is declaring that this team will not endeavor to do much more than the Expos were known for.....have a great farm system, bring up young studs, and trade them away or let them go when they cost too much. Denver deserves better than that.

Quote:

There is no reason to have a well stocked minor-league system, if you're going to keep the Holliday-Atkins-Cook's of the world.

That is patently absurd. Every organization should strive for a deep farm system if, for no other reason, the prospects can be utilized as trade chips in order to fill positions that the farm system can't. Even deep farm systems have weaknesses at certain positions. No successful major-league team stays that way for long by exclusively filling their rosters with homegrown players and fringe players from other organizations. They bring in key veterans as well.

The A's brought in Frank Thomas. Before that, Jermaine Dye, and others.

The Tigers last year brought in Kenny Rogers, and the year prior had signed Pudge Rodriguez.

Key veterans that cost money are needed to fill holes the farm can't.

Quote:

If Cook has a successful season, sign him to a Contract, but if he doesn't progress, then trade him.

That's ridiculous. You are going to make 2007 Cook's "make or break" year with the Rockies? Why? Fact is that if Cook doesn't do that well, he may actually not be that expensive in the future, and is someone Monfort could afford to sign long-term.....just when Cook's leverage is at a low point.

Quote:

Holliday? His value is at its highest, so he'll be gone. You know that.
So let me ask you, should the Rockies not develop any corner OF's because Holliday will be around for 7 more years?

Huh? Did I ever suggest that the Rockies NOT have organizatonal depth? Or that Holliday be signed to a 4-year extension beyond his sixth year? Truth is that we don't know how much higher Holliday's upside is, or how much he will cost when he's due for his big payday. He may even regress. OF COURSE you try to develop corner OF's.....it just gives you better flexibility to pursue multiple options in a sport with uncertainty.

Quote:

If your opinion is that the A's, who've made the playoffs a lot lately, are nothing more than a meat factory?
Why should their fans stick with them then...

The A's should not be our model. The Tigers, Braves, and Cardinals are in markets comparable to our's, or at least to what our potential is. The A's share the Bay Area market with the Giants who have a far superior venue. When they move to Fremont, that may change. But for now, they thrive through the genius of Billy Beane, and the good fortune of being in a pitcher's venue and a 4-team division.

Quote:

Tell me WHY you think the A's are wrong in their approach, and why a similar approach can't work here.

Please point out for our edification where I wrote that the A's model "can't work here"? Sure, it can. But it's not the optimal model in a market that can generate over $150 million of revenues with good management. I believe the Rockies generate $125 million of revenues now with a team that hasn't played a meaningful game in September since 1997. Imagine what they could generate with just a few consecutive years of contention (not playoff appearances, just contention for playoff spots late in the year). There is no necessity to follow the A's model, because the Rockies' situation is far better than it is in Oakland.

I suggest you spend less time defending Monfort's ill thought-out public remarks, and more time to understand what I actually wrote.

hiaspire · 02-03-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Please point out for our edification where I wrote that the A's model "can't work here"? Sure, it can.

Sure it can is right. Glad to hear it! Now that we know the plan and agree that it CAN work, then let's get down to it. No reason it can't work, so let's keep going and evaluate their progress WITHIN that strategy that can lead to success. Not measure them against some unrelated yardstick that is entirely outside of the working plan - in which there is agreement (and examples throughout the game history) that it can work.

Fans can wish all day for magical solutions and entirely different financial strategies, but it ain't happening. Step up to reality. This is what we have and will have for the forseeable future. There aren't going to be any pots of gold at the end of imaginary rainbows here. If we are going to be any good, we are going to have to earn it the old fashioned way. That's not unrealistic and certainly can be done. It is a workable path before us that can lead to somewhere positive, and now we just have to go down that road and judge what we see of that chosen strategy that can lead to success if executed well.

rockieprogress · 02-03-2007, 12:27 PM

Roxpert,
You deride the Monforts for being honest with the fans, and telling them they're going to follow the A's organizational model, which you say can work here, and then turn around and say they're sending the wrong message to the players and the fans.

Most of the players don't care what organization PAYS them the big bucks, as long as they get it.
Did JJ show any loyalty to the organization? Not IMO. He wanted to "test the waters".
Holliday? Same thing.
Atkins? Same thing.
How about Francis? He signed and is thinking long-term, right? His loyalty might be rewarded when (if) he shows he keeps progressing, but if he doesn't keep getting better (18-20 wins per yr for a couple of yrs) they can cut the cord when he reaches FA.

That's a big difference between 3 of the 5 that most people want to keep.
The Rockies are not going to sign Holliday to a 7yr $115M contract after they've seen how Heltons health issues have affected his productivity.
Atkins? Same thing. With Stewart coming up, they don't need to sign him, so why do it? To appease the players? The fans?

Like I said, if Cook has a productive year, and establishes himself as a Staff leader, then sign him to a contract (and by that I mean 6-7 yrs). If he stays stagnant (not more than 13 wins), he gets a 1 yr and a JJ send-off for some prospects.
Just like the A's did with Mulder and Hudson. If the A's fans can see their franchise trade away 2 Pitchers that should be built around, and not panic and throw tantrums, then why can't the Rockies do the same thing with their fans? Should they allow Cook or JJ to do a Zito on them?
Tejada was a can't miss SS, that hits for power. And yet, the A's traded him away.
Did the fans revolt? NO.
Whats the difference between fanbases? One (the A's) has been told what the franchise is going to do, and the other (the Rockies) hasn't been very forthcoming with honest communication to their fans.

I can see that what the Rockies are doing, right now, is similar to what the A's did in the early 90's.

My question is this to you, and I'm not being vindictive or anything either, but as a Giants fan do you think your unease with the A's way of running their franchise (and the Rockies patterning their franchise after it) is due to your early baseball associations?

As far as other minor-league organizations, the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Tampa are all franchises that haven't filled a single hole trading away their prospects.
The Yankees? They were only successful once they got 4 players to the bigs, and built around them. Once they traded away Soriano, and Bernie got old, they haven't been successful (which for their franchise is winning the WS), and have spent so much money, they could've bought LODO...

Yet the A's, Twins, and Braves, have reloaded numerous times, and been successful within their franchises goals.

Roxpert · 02-03-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockieprogress

Roxpert,
You deride the Monforts for being honest with the fans, and telling them they're going to follow the A's organizational model, which you say can work here, and then turn around and say they're sending the wrong message to the players and the fans.

"Turn around"? Tell me how deriding Monfort and saying they're sending the wrong message is contradictory? I'm not turning around, and my statement was quite consistent. And I'll stand by my statement. You don't tell your fans that you are a small market franchise that feeds talent to the "haves" of baseball like a minor league feeder team. That's bad PR, and is just what Monfort did. As to why Monfort has re-made the Rockies into this "small market" franchise with a bottom tier payroll is mysterious and certainly not taking full advantage of the market potential we all know exists here.

Quote:

Whats the difference between fanbases? One (the A's) has been told what the franchise is going to do, and the other (the Rockies) hasn't been very forthcoming with honest communication to their fans.

You still aren't grasping this, RP. The REAL difference in the two fanbases, i.e. the Oakland and Denver markets, is that in the case of Oakland, their upside in gate draw is paltry compared to what we KNOW the upside potential for gate draw is here in Denver. We have PROVEN to support worthy teams, drew 4+ million to Mile High, 3+ million multiple times in Coors, led ALL of MLB in attendance our first SEVEN seasons in a row. Oakland can't touch that, and so HAS to pursue the model they have. We DON'T have to pursue such a model, but our poormouthing owner has CHOSEN to pursue that model. He's not being honest with himself, or being very smart, if he truly feels the Denver market is "small market". It's the ownership's wallet that is small, not the market.

Quote:

My question is this to you, and I'm not being vindictive or anything either, but as a Giants fan do you think your unease with the A's way of running their franchise (and the Rockies patterning their franchise after it) is due to your early baseball associations?

Now, you are just being silly. A) I am no longer a Giants fan, having adopted the Rockies. B) I have never had "unease" with the A's way, nor have I written that. For the A's situation, their model is best. For our situation, a more financially aggressive model would be suitable. That's all I've been saying.

You, just like Charlie Monfort, seem to be "selling our market short". I don't quite understand that. We aren't friggin' OAKLAND, for goodness sakes!

hiaspire · 02-03-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

For the A's situation, their model is best. For our situation, a more financially aggressive model would be suitable. That's all I've been saying.

More suitable for who?? You?? It certainly isn't more suitable for the people with the money, or else they'd be doing it. They already tried it that way and it certainly wasn't suitable for them.

I could say a much more aggressive spending strategy is more suitable for you (one that involves buying me season tickets), but shouldn't be telling you what is more suitable for your own bank account even though I would appreciate that spending strategy.

Roxpert · 02-03-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiaspire

More suitable for who?? You?? It certainly isn't more suitable for the people with the money, or else they'd be doing it.

HiAspire, this isn't about me or what's "suitable for me".

Your assumption that if it was the right strategy, i.e. "suitable" for the owners, then they'd be doing it assumes that A) they have the brains and insight to know that, and B) they have the means. WHY do you presume that Monfort would make the right business decisions anyway? You assume that whatever the most "suitable" or best decision that exists for his business would be the decision he'd choose? He's shown little evidence he can do that, and I don't trust him to do so nearly as much as you do. The ability to OWN a franchise does not equate to the ability to run it correctly.....so I don't subscribe to the notion that if it was the most suitable financial strategy, they'd be doing it.

Monfort & Co. are not suitable for this market. They don't seem to know, or care that Denver has proven to be a lucrative market for sports owners who are commited to spending on a winner. We support sports unlike very few sports towns in America.

It's suitable for the franchise value if they build a winner, which ideally includes developing talent internally AND spending on veterans externally (or on the right internal veterans who command $$$$). In case you haven't noticed, this ownership group has not delivered us a winner in a long, LONG time.

Owners with a more aggressive financial spending plan would make it more possible for us to have a sustainable contender here. Notice I didn't say "guarantee", nor did I say it can't be done the A's way. It is pure common sense that developing PLUS spending on talent increases your odds.

That strategy is employed by Kroenke and Bowlen, with good success. Why not by Monfort? We have a market, and a venue, that would financially support a league MEDIAN payroll, if not more. Notice I didn't say they need to spend like the Yankees, or like drunken sailors, which is what they did when they wasted all that money on Hampton and Neagle while giving Helton an unnecessary 10-year extension.

So when you ask who it's suitable for, the answer is all around you. It's suitable for the fans since we'd have a better shot at rooting for a contender every season. AND, it's suitable for ownership because success breeds more success, and enhances franchise value.

I'm sorry you can't, or don't, wish to understand this concept. You are in good company, though, as Charlie Monfort shares your thinking exactly.

hiaspire · 02-03-2007, 11:35 PM

Find a leprechaun or unicorn and see if they'll grant this magical wish. I can't. You can (and do) talk till your blue in the face about how bad the owners are and about how much more money we need to spend. Year after year. Ask Newman how much good that does. Maybe it does you good to complain about it personally, but it certainly doesn't change reality.

There are teams across all sports that have "bad" owners. Owners also aren't on the playing field. The owner isn't teaching Tulo how to become a big leaguer. You won't find the owner working with Iannetta on his plate blocking technique.

You already agree that other A's-type models CAN work here, right? Your words aren't going to make the owners any richer or any more ready to lose their shirt on another Hampton-like bold move. But there are other models that can work in the sport.

And those models are either successful or not PRIMARILY because of the people actually working with the players on the field to develop their talent. That's baseball. That's our reality to judge improvement by. Not whether the checkbook gets any thicker, but whether the players get any better.

The question isn't whether or not the owners are suitable for baseball. That answer is utterly MEANINGLESS in reality. Other than in sports bar fights or something. Okay, so the owners aren't great and it would be better with different guys. I wished it, so now what? NOTHING. In reality, it means nothing. They are the owners because nobody else in this town stepped up when they did. They brought the game here. Unless you are going to buy them out, it's pointless. It's like complaining that the night is dark when you can't do anything about it.

You can curse them up and down all day, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't change a darn thing. The game is still going to be played on the field. Whether they are successful or not down this reasonable path (which you seem to agree can work even if you don't prefer it) depends entirely on people who are NOT the owners and who are actually doing the baseball work.

Roxpert · 02-04-2007, 12:33 AM

Look.....I realize that the only people who can change ownership is.....ownership. That is no reason to be silent about their idiotic behavior or public comments. When I read what Monfort said to the Post the other day, I thought it worthy to point out the horrible PR that it represented. Thus, I started this thread topic.

This is a message board, and I have the right (as we all do) to criticize players, owners, managers, mascots, whatever.....hopefully WITHOUT having to endure endless lectures about its "pointlessness" from the likes of YOU!

One more thing.....if you don't like the topics I bring up such as critques of our owner, then don't read them. Skip to the next thread, instead of coming on this thread to criticize my choice of topics, even if I do talk about it until "blue in the face".

hiaspire · 02-04-2007, 02:20 AM

I did skip the topic until the A's model was brought up by someone else and discussed in several posts (including your own). That to me is more interesting than just complaining about the owners (which won't change) because things CAN work this way, so long as they do their jobs well on the field and make good choices down that path. Just reacting and responding to other poster comments I found interesting.

I certainly agree with the entire planet that better owners would be nice, and can understand some emotional venting over that. But that's not going to change any time soon, and there are bigger issues that will impact what happens on the field. The path choosen may not be the most exciting or spark the same headlines as the Hampton/Neagle spending sprees of the past, but it is an entirely reasonable and workable path that can be successful (as you also seem to somewhat agree in general).

So if it can work this way, and they seem to have the young talent (about as good as anyone in the game) to make a run at that, then let's see how they execute that plan. Let's evaluate the baseball skill involved in managing this process. They should have the pieces to make it work about as much as anyone who has tried it.

And such a plan IS the most suitable arguably for owners with smaller pocketbooks and more conservative outlooks due to recent monumental financial blunders. It is not the sexiest choice, but I can accept and respect the choice made and set my sights on evaluating the progess within that context instead of judging them by standards that don't apply to their given reality.

Roxpert · 02-04-2007, 10:37 AM

I'm fine with your wanting to follow the progress the Rockies make with their "A's East" model, and that's worthy of separate discussions and threads. You do realize, however, that it's off-topic with respect to THIS thread.

The topic of ownership foibles is also worth following, as is the topic of managerial blunders, mistakes by the GM, the humidor, Coors Field, etc. See my point? When I saw those Monfort quotes in the Post, I thought they were foolish and worthy of discussion in a thread. You may find the topic boring, and that's fine, but don't be dissing me for wanting to talk about it "until I'm blue in the face". And please don't divert the topic on this thread to a discussion of the merits of the A's model, even if someone else brought up the subject. Thank you.

02-03-2007, 11:35 PM	#12 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 479	Find a leprechaun or unicorn and see if they'll grant this magical wish. I can't. You can (and do) talk till your blue in the face about how bad the owners are and about how much more money we need to spend. Year after year. Ask Newman how much good that does. Maybe it does you good to complain about it personally, but it certainly doesn't change reality. There are teams across all sports that have "bad" owners. Owners also aren't on the playing field. The owner isn't teaching Tulo how to become a big leaguer. You won't find the owner working with Iannetta on his plate blocking technique. You already agree that other A's-type models CAN work here, right? Your words aren't going to make the owners any richer or any more ready to lose their shirt on another Hampton-like bold move. But there are other models that can work in the sport. And those models are either successful or not PRIMARILY because of the people actually working with the players on the field to develop their talent. That's baseball. That's our reality to judge improvement by. Not whether the checkbook gets any thicker, but whether the players get any better. The question isn't whether or not the owners are suitable for baseball. That answer is utterly MEANINGLESS in reality. Other than in sports bar fights or something. Okay, so the owners aren't great and it would be better with different guys. I wished it, so now what? NOTHING. In reality, it means nothing. They are the owners because nobody else in this town stepped up when they did. They brought the game here. Unless you are going to buy them out, it's pointless. It's like complaining that the night is dark when you can't do anything about it. You can curse them up and down all day, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't change a darn thing. The game is still going to be played on the field. Whether they are successful or not down this reasonable path (which you seem to agree can work even if you don't prefer it) depends entirely on people who are NOT the owners and who are actually doing the baseball work. Last edited by hiaspire; 02-03-2007 at 11:49 PM.

02-04-2007, 12:33 AM	#13 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,059	Look.....I realize that the only people who can change ownership is.....ownership. That is no reason to be silent about their idiotic behavior or public comments. When I read what Monfort said to the Post the other day, I thought it worthy to point out the horrible PR that it represented. Thus, I started this thread topic. This is a message board, and I have the right (as we all do) to criticize players, owners, managers, mascots, whatever.....hopefully WITHOUT having to endure endless lectures about its "pointlessness" from the likes of YOU! One more thing.....if you don't like the topics I bring up such as critques of our owner, then don't read them. Skip to the next thread, instead of coming on this thread to criticize my choice of topics, even if I do talk about it until "blue in the face". Last edited by Roxpert; 02-04-2007 at 12:43 AM.

02-02-2007, 02:43 PM	#2 (permalink)
wolf213 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Thornton Co Posts: 194	Sometimes I feel like D'OD needs to duct tape Monfort's mouth shut. His timing couldn't be worse. After pissing of the casual fan base by attempting to trade Helton, he then comes out the next day and tells the fans not to get attached to any of the young players because where "Poor". If Monfort was on "The Apprentice" Trump would surely fire his ass in no time. The guy is totally clueless about running a business, and marketing a product, and every time he opens his mouth, it just serves to piss off his customers.

02-02-2007, 07:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
RMF Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 201	You really do have to wonder about Charlie Monfort. He's arguably the worst owner in baseball. He's living in a market that basically gives him a free ride and he's actively antagonizing the fanbase and media. The guy is a clown.

02-03-2007, 02:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
rockieprogress Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: aurora Posts: 183	Roxpert, are you asking them to keep every player they develop? That's what I'm reading... There will be some players they decide to keep, but like the A's, it might not be who you think. They let ALL of the big-3 go, and Tejada to boot. Yet, Chavez got a contract. There is no reason to have a well stocked minor-league system, if you're going to keep the Holliday-Atkins-Cook's of the world. If Cook has a successful season, sign him to a Contract, but if he doesn't progress, then trade him. Holliday? His value is at its highest, so he'll be gone. You know that. So let me ask you, should the Rockies not develop any corner OF's because Holliday will be around for 7 more years? Same with Atkins. Should they just trade Baker and Stewart RIGHT NOW, because Atkins should be signed for 7 more years? Why spend any money on a minor league system at all. Why not be like the Giants, and develop a few Pitchers, and bring in old players to fill the holes? If your opinion is that the A's, who've made the playoffs a lot lately, are nothing more than a meat factory? Why should their fans stick with them then... Please don't tell me what the A's spend on their salaries, and make a comparison to what the Rockies spend. I know about that. Tell me WHY you think the A's are wrong in their approach, and why a similar approach can't work here.

02-03-2007, 12:27 PM	#8 (permalink)
rockieprogress Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: aurora Posts: 183	Roxpert, You deride the Monforts for being honest with the fans, and telling them they're going to follow the A's organizational model, which you say can work here, and then turn around and say they're sending the wrong message to the players and the fans. Most of the players don't care what organization PAYS them the big bucks, as long as they get it. Did JJ show any loyalty to the organization? Not IMO. He wanted to "test the waters". Holliday? Same thing. Atkins? Same thing. How about Francis? He signed and is thinking long-term, right? His loyalty might be rewarded when (if) he shows he keeps progressing, but if he doesn't keep getting better (18-20 wins per yr for a couple of yrs) they can cut the cord when he reaches FA. That's a big difference between 3 of the 5 that most people want to keep. The Rockies are not going to sign Holliday to a 7yr $115M contract after they've seen how Heltons health issues have affected his productivity. Atkins? Same thing. With Stewart coming up, they don't need to sign him, so why do it? To appease the players? The fans? Like I said, if Cook has a productive year, and establishes himself as a Staff leader, then sign him to a contract (and by that I mean 6-7 yrs). If he stays stagnant (not more than 13 wins), he gets a 1 yr and a JJ send-off for some prospects. Just like the A's did with Mulder and Hudson. If the A's fans can see their franchise trade away 2 Pitchers that should be built around, and not panic and throw tantrums, then why can't the Rockies do the same thing with their fans? Should they allow Cook or JJ to do a Zito on them? Tejada was a can't miss SS, that hits for power. And yet, the A's traded him away. Did the fans revolt? NO. Whats the difference between fanbases? One (the A's) has been told what the franchise is going to do, and the other (the Rockies) hasn't been very forthcoming with honest communication to their fans. I can see that what the Rockies are doing, right now, is similar to what the A's did in the early 90's. My question is this to you, and I'm not being vindictive or anything either, but as a Giants fan do you think your unease with the A's way of running their franchise (and the Rockies patterning their franchise after it) is due to your early baseball associations? As far as other minor-league organizations, the Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Tampa are all franchises that haven't filled a single hole trading away their prospects. The Yankees? They were only successful once they got 4 players to the bigs, and built around them. Once they traded away Soriano, and Bernie got old, they haven't been successful (which for their franchise is winning the WS), and have spent so much money, they could've bought LODO... Yet the A's, Twins, and Braves, have reloaded numerous times, and been successful within their franchises goals.

02-04-2007, 02:20 AM	#14 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 479	I did skip the topic until the A's model was brought up by someone else and discussed in several posts (including your own). That to me is more interesting than just complaining about the owners (which won't change) because things CAN work this way, so long as they do their jobs well on the field and make good choices down that path. Just reacting and responding to other poster comments I found interesting. I certainly agree with the entire planet that better owners would be nice, and can understand some emotional venting over that. But that's not going to change any time soon, and there are bigger issues that will impact what happens on the field. The path choosen may not be the most exciting or spark the same headlines as the Hampton/Neagle spending sprees of the past, but it is an entirely reasonable and workable path that can be successful (as you also seem to somewhat agree in general). So if it can work this way, and they seem to have the young talent (about as good as anyone in the game) to make a run at that, then let's see how they execute that plan. Let's evaluate the baseball skill involved in managing this process. They should have the pieces to make it work about as much as anyone who has tried it. And such a plan IS the most suitable arguably for owners with smaller pocketbooks and more conservative outlooks due to recent monumental financial blunders. It is not the sexiest choice, but I can accept and respect the choice made and set my sights on evaluating the progess within that context instead of judging them by standards that don't apply to their given reality.

02-04-2007, 10:37 AM	#15 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,059	I'm fine with your wanting to follow the progress the Rockies make with their "A's East" model, and that's worthy of separate discussions and threads. You do realize, however, that it's off-topic with respect to THIS thread. The topic of ownership foibles is also worth following, as is the topic of managerial blunders, mistakes by the GM, the humidor, Coors Field, etc. See my point? When I saw those Monfort quotes in the Post, I thought they were foolish and worthy of discussion in a thread. You may find the topic boring, and that's fine, but don't be dissing me for wanting to talk about it "until I'm blue in the face". And please don't divert the topic on this thread to a discussion of the merits of the A's model, even if someone else brought up the subject. Thank you.