Quietest first day of Spring Training EVER - Page 2

Roxpert · February 17th, 2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Below C-Level

I must admit that I just don't understand the people who post on this message board sometimes.

He dumps her, because she's fat.

Then don't try to understand us. I thought your analogy was cute, but I suggest you refrain from "commenting about the commentators", and instead just make comments about baseball. It's your sort of post that causes flaming on the internet.

GerryInCS · February 17th, 2007, 11:25 AM

Here's a story on Helton

Off to a Bad Start

rockieprogress · February 17th, 2007, 12:52 PM

While reading that article, something made me wonder.

Why is it that if the player wants to wait and explore his "value" on the FA market thats OK, but if a team wants to explore a players "value" on the trade market, the player acts as though the team doesn't want him.
Is it because the player might find out he isn't worth what he thought he was and lacks the advantage of playing the team, with his agent using the "we have other offers", for all they're worth?

In Helton's case, I think the Rockies have seen that no one appears willing to offer anything of value for him, and now Helton seems miffed by it.

Newman · February 17th, 2007, 08:33 PM

Heltonfan is a kid? We can't be led by a kid. WE need someone older and more experienced to lead us to victory. Does anyone know Don Rumsfeld's email address?

Below C-Level · February 17th, 2007, 09:41 PM

Wait a second there, Roxpert...

Sure I was having a little fun with it, but the sentiment expressed in my post was absolutely sincere and (in my opinion) no less valid than the groupthink mud-slinging that others seem to be gleefully exchanging high fives over.

Just because I don't share your pessimism regarding the team, or cynicism as to the motives and/or capabilities of management and ownership, that doesn't mean that you "get it" and I don't.

The bottom line, for me, is this: this is a team with 22 homegrown guys on the 40 man roster. It's a team with a farm system that was just ranked #2 by Baseball America. It's a team that was in first place as late as July 4th last year and for more than a month overall. They return everyone but Jennings, who they replaced with a CF upgrade, a potential late innings power arm and a guy who could be better than JJ as soon as April, 2007. Holliday, Atkins and Hawpe are getting into that 27 year old hitters' prime. Francis, Hirsh and Cook have the makings of a nice, young rotation and there's decent competition for the #4 and #5 spots, which hasn't always been the case around here. The organization has several good power arms in the pen, including Morillo, Jimenez and Buccholz. Not to mention Morales and Reynolds...

So yes, you'll forgive me if I express some confusion as to why people seem to take so much pleasure in purposefully overlooking all of these things and trotting out the same old, tired platitudes (i.e. "same old Rox").

What is it about the 2007 Rockies that you think is cause for such pessimism?

Roxpert · February 17th, 2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Below C-Level

Wait a second there, Roxpert...

Sure I was having a little fun with it, but the sentiment expressed in my post was absolutely sincere and (in my opinion) no less valid than the groupthink mud-slinging that others seem to be gleefully exchanging high fives over.

The only one "mudslinging" about the other posters in this thread was from you. And you continue to do so by characterizing our thinking as "groupthink" and saying we exchange high fives "gleefully".

Quote:

Just because I don't share your pessimism regarding the team, or cynicism as to the motives and/or capabilities of management and ownership, that doesn't mean that you "get it" and I don't.

Umm, where did I say I get it and you don't? All I said is to stick to comments regarding the team and baseball, and not about other posters.

Quote:

So yes, you'll forgive me if I express some confusion as to why people seem to take so much pleasure in purposefully overlooking all of these things and trotting out the same old, tired platitudes (i.e. "same old Rox").

What is it about the 2007 Rockies that you think is cause for such pessimism?

That a complete misrespresentation of our feelings toward the Rockies.

We don't take "pleasure" and aren't intentionally overlooking our young players/prospects. Most of us are objective fans and analysts of the game who have followed the Rockies since the begiining of the franchise or for many years. I can't speak for others, but I suspect we gain our beliefs from about a decade of being irrelevant also-rans by the time September rolls around. We have weak ownership, a strong and deep farm system, and questionable field management.

I'm not so much "pessimistic" about the 2007 Rockies as I am realistic. I believe we will be in our accustomed spot, i.e. 4th or 5th in the NL West. It's still too early to make my offiial W/L prediction for 2007, but I was too pessimistic last year in thinking the team would lose 100 games. If I had to guess about this year right now, I think we will lose 85 to 90 games, and my hunch is that may end up looking a bit too optimistic.

If that's not the answer you wanted, don't comment about ME. Just focus on the subject matter, and the subject is the Rockies, not any one poster.

DieHardRoxFan · February 18th, 2007, 08:21 AM

How anybody could be optimistic about the Rockies with this ownership and a pathetic field manager to overcome is beyond me. The Monforts are already backpedaling on the status of the Cooler and DOD.

GerryInCS · February 18th, 2007, 09:13 AM

What causes the pessimism? A two word answer, cheap ownership. The Monforts have not yet shown the desire to hold on to young past their arbitration years, unless they can keep it for cheap. That's why Sullivan could still be here in three years and Hawpe, Holliday and Atkins will be gone. This team is the Pirates of the NL West, lots of young talent, especially out in the field and when it gets to expensive we'll ship it away. This team is seimming in the sea of mediocrity.

Below C-Level · February 18th, 2007, 10:04 AM

GerryInCS, what premium, young talents are you referring to that the Rockies have shown an unwillingness to keep beyond their arbitration years? Who, specifically, are you referring to when you make that statement? Also, who have the Rockies lost to free agency that you would have liked to see them hold onto? Let's move from the general to the specific.

This Winter, they lost Ray King and Jose Mesa to free agency. I'm guessing you didn't lose any sleep over either of those deals.

So really what you're talking about is Jason Jennings, right? Jason Jennings was offered 3 years and $24M, but he turned it down. Assuming you could offer him enough money to forgo free agency (which, as the Astros are discovering may not be a safe assumption) how much would you have offered Jason Jennings, Gerry?

Would you have given him 4 years and $40M? Maybe $45M? Considering the opportunity cost with guys like Holliday, Atkins and Hawpe right behind him, and Tulo, Iannetta et al coming after them, would you feel good about paying Jason Jennings $10M a year? How about $12M? Put a dollar figure on him that also takes into account the "loss" of Jason Hirsh, Wily Taveras and Taylor Buchholz.

I'm being serious, say they had given him a Barry Zito contract, would you have lauded management and ownership for spending to retain their players, or would you have criticized them for a dumb signing?

Where do you put his value?

Newman · February 18th, 2007, 11:05 AM

Gerry, what Independent are you going to vote for in 2008? That racist hate monger Tom Tancredo? Go ahead, make my day. Waste your vote. Independent parties don't work in America. Adios.

Below C-Level, I think Roxpert does "get it" and you don't. How can you both be right? One of you is wrong...and I think it is you. We can't compete with this ownership. The players noticed that Jennings was dealt. He was our ace, homegrown.

Athletes may be stupid, like Tim Hardaway, but they are not dumb. What do you think they'll be talking about in the lockerroom in Tucson? They'll be speculating where all our talent, people like Matt Holliday, Cook, Atkins, and so forth, which teams will those guys wind up on once they start making real money.

Heltonfan · February 18th, 2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

The players noticed that Jennings was dealt. He was our ace.

No, he wasn't. He was no better than Francis or Cook.

If we let players go and get nothing in return, then you're right to complain about ownership. But we haven't had that happen yet. The Jennings deal would have been a fine move even if there was no financial element to it. In 2008, Jennings will cost about $10 million more than Hirsh, Taveras, and Buchholz combined, and the on-field value will be a wash. Why on earth would you not want the cheaper package? Keeping Jennings would have been spending for the sake of spending. Absolute nonsense.

I want to see more spending as well. But I want to see that spending lead to actual improvements. And that won't happen unless we save money where we can.

It's fine to be pessimistic, but when you abandon cost/benefit calculations in favor of a simplistic "we need to keep everyone" mentality, your argument loses whatever weight it might have had.

Below C-Level · February 18th, 2007, 11:35 AM

Thank you, Newman. Had you agreed with me, that would have been the first indication that I should probably reconsider my position...

You're consistent, though. I have to give you that...

Roxpert · February 18th, 2007, 12:36 PM

The Jennings trade was a fine one, and I've lauded the FO for doing that deal already.

Below-C-Level, I think the angst that fans have about the Monforts is somewhat based on what Charlie Monfort has said to the media quite recently. He said that we don't have much of a choice but to have a good and deep farm system since we won't be able to afford our young players after their arbitration years. He actually said that if fans perceive the Rockies as a "minor league team for the Yankees", then "so be it".

So, the ownership has shown its hand and has, in effect, said that "Gen R" is nothing more than "Gen Cheap". Combine that with the miserable track record of this franchise since 1997, and you can't blame fans for being cynical and pessimistic about our future, even with a good and deep farm system.

In other words, Below-C-Level, this franchise has little if any credibility left with its fans, your credulity notwithstanding.

Newman · February 18th, 2007, 08:11 PM

Well, Heltonfan, what do you know? You're just a kid <had to say it, sigh, I'm so amusing>.

Roxpert, I have to agree with C-Level on this one. YOU don't get it! The Jennings trade was a bad one because of the message it sent to the clubhouse, which was "as soon as you start making big money you'll be gone."

Or maybe that's more a message to the fans. Don't get attached to any of our young players. They won't be here for long. Get used to THAT.

I deliver messages everyday except Sunday. Maybe the message is that we will never be playing for this year. It's always going to be better down the road, in a couple of years (sounds eerily similar to the war in Iraq rhetoric).

Jennings knew how to pitch here. And he was durable. Gobbled up innings. Those two pitchers we got for him might become good, down the road, in a few years. Jennings was already good. Today. And Tavares has less power than Juan Pierre. It's hard to get excited about that no matter how many stats and numbers you throw at us. Sure he has speed but you don't have to belong to SABR to know you can't steal first base.

rockieprogress · February 18th, 2007, 08:29 PM

Roxpert, why aren't the A's considered a farm-system for the Yankees?
Or even the Giants with their signing of Zito. I've never understood the difference...

Its not about what is spent, its about success on the field. Yes the Rockies haven't been successful on the field for a while (ever), but keeping certain players will probably happen once those players show some loyalty to the organization (read: Francis), and letting players that seem destined to have their agent emulate Tom Cruise, will be traded before they become a headache.

February 17th, 2007, 11:25 AM	#17 (permalink)
GerryInCS New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 635	Here's a story on Helton Off to a Bad Start __________________ Americans aren't afraid of Mexicans, Americans are afraid that Mexicans are turning America into Mexico.

February 18th, 2007, 09:13 AM	#23 (permalink)
GerryInCS New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 635	What causes the pessimism? A two word answer, cheap ownership. The Monforts have not yet shown the desire to hold on to young past their arbitration years, unless they can keep it for cheap. That's why Sullivan could still be here in three years and Hawpe, Holliday and Atkins will be gone. This team is the Pirates of the NL West, lots of young talent, especially out in the field and when it gets to expensive we'll ship it away. This team is seimming in the sea of mediocrity. __________________ Americans aren't afraid of Mexicans, Americans are afraid that Mexicans are turning America into Mexico.

February 18th, 2007, 10:04 AM	#24 (permalink)
Below C-Level Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 55	GerryInCS, what premium, young talents are you referring to that the Rockies have shown an unwillingness to keep beyond their arbitration years? Who, specifically, are you referring to when you make that statement? Also, who have the Rockies lost to free agency that you would have liked to see them hold onto? Let's move from the general to the specific. This Winter, they lost Ray King and Jose Mesa to free agency. I'm guessing you didn't lose any sleep over either of those deals. So really what you're talking about is Jason Jennings, right? Jason Jennings was offered 3 years and $24M, but he turned it down. Assuming you could offer him enough money to forgo free agency (which, as the Astros are discovering may not be a safe assumption) how much would you have offered Jason Jennings, Gerry? Would you have given him 4 years and $40M? Maybe $45M? Considering the opportunity cost with guys like Holliday, Atkins and Hawpe right behind him, and Tulo, Iannetta et al coming after them, would you feel good about paying Jason Jennings $10M a year? How about $12M? Put a dollar figure on him that also takes into account the "loss" of Jason Hirsh, Wily Taveras and Taylor Buchholz. I'm being serious, say they had given him a Barry Zito contract, would you have lauded management and ownership for spending to retain their players, or would you have criticized them for a dumb signing? Where do you put his value? Last edited by Below C-Level; February 18th, 2007 at 10:06 AM.

February 18th, 2007, 12:36 PM	#28 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	The Jennings trade was a fine one, and I've lauded the FO for doing that deal already. Below-C-Level, I think the angst that fans have about the Monforts is somewhat based on what Charlie Monfort has said to the media quite recently. He said that we don't have much of a choice but to have a good and deep farm system since we won't be able to afford our young players after their arbitration years. He actually said that if fans perceive the Rockies as a "minor league team for the Yankees", then "so be it". So, the ownership has shown its hand and has, in effect, said that "Gen R" is nothing more than "Gen Cheap". Combine that with the miserable track record of this franchise since 1997, and you can't blame fans for being cynical and pessimistic about our future, even with a good and deep farm system. In other words, Below-C-Level, this franchise has little if any credibility left with its fans, your credulity notwithstanding. Last edited by Roxpert; February 18th, 2007 at 12:42 PM.

February 17th, 2007, 12:52 PM	#18 (permalink)
rockieprogress Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: aurora Posts: 183	While reading that article, something made me wonder. Why is it that if the player wants to wait and explore his "value" on the FA market thats OK, but if a team wants to explore a players "value" on the trade market, the player acts as though the team doesn't want him. Is it because the player might find out he isn't worth what he thought he was and lacks the advantage of playing the team, with his agent using the "we have other offers", for all they're worth? In Helton's case, I think the Rockies have seen that no one appears willing to offer anything of value for him, and now Helton seems miffed by it.

February 17th, 2007, 08:33 PM	#19 (permalink)
Newman Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Aurora Posts: 566	Heltonfan is a kid? We can't be led by a kid. WE need someone older and more experienced to lead us to victory. Does anyone know Don Rumsfeld's email address?

February 17th, 2007, 09:41 PM	#20 (permalink)
Below C-Level Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 55	Wait a second there, Roxpert... Sure I was having a little fun with it, but the sentiment expressed in my post was absolutely sincere and (in my opinion) no less valid than the groupthink mud-slinging that others seem to be gleefully exchanging high fives over. Just because I don't share your pessimism regarding the team, or cynicism as to the motives and/or capabilities of management and ownership, that doesn't mean that you "get it" and I don't. The bottom line, for me, is this: this is a team with 22 homegrown guys on the 40 man roster. It's a team with a farm system that was just ranked #2 by Baseball America. It's a team that was in first place as late as July 4th last year and for more than a month overall. They return everyone but Jennings, who they replaced with a CF upgrade, a potential late innings power arm and a guy who could be better than JJ as soon as April, 2007. Holliday, Atkins and Hawpe are getting into that 27 year old hitters' prime. Francis, Hirsh and Cook have the makings of a nice, young rotation and there's decent competition for the #4 and #5 spots, which hasn't always been the case around here. The organization has several good power arms in the pen, including Morillo, Jimenez and Buccholz. Not to mention Morales and Reynolds... So yes, you'll forgive me if I express some confusion as to why people seem to take so much pleasure in purposefully overlooking all of these things and trotting out the same old, tired platitudes (i.e. "same old Rox"). What is it about the 2007 Rockies that you think is cause for such pessimism?

February 18th, 2007, 08:21 AM	#22 (permalink)
DieHardRoxFan Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 153	How anybody could be optimistic about the Rockies with this ownership and a pathetic field manager to overcome is beyond me. The Monforts are already backpedaling on the status of the Cooler and DOD.

February 18th, 2007, 11:05 AM	#25 (permalink)
Newman Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Aurora Posts: 566	Gerry, what Independent are you going to vote for in 2008? That racist hate monger Tom Tancredo? Go ahead, make my day. Waste your vote. Independent parties don't work in America. Adios. Below C-Level, I think Roxpert does "get it" and you don't. How can you both be right? One of you is wrong...and I think it is you. We can't compete with this ownership. The players noticed that Jennings was dealt. He was our ace, homegrown. Athletes may be stupid, like Tim Hardaway, but they are not dumb. What do you think they'll be talking about in the lockerroom in Tucson? They'll be speculating where all our talent, people like Matt Holliday, Cook, Atkins, and so forth, which teams will those guys wind up on once they start making real money.

February 18th, 2007, 11:35 AM	#27 (permalink)
Below C-Level Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 55	Thank you, Newman. Had you agreed with me, that would have been the first indication that I should probably reconsider my position... You're consistent, though. I have to give you that...

February 18th, 2007, 08:11 PM	#29 (permalink)
Newman Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Aurora Posts: 566	Well, Heltonfan, what do you know? You're just a kid <had to say it, sigh, I'm so amusing>. Roxpert, I have to agree with C-Level on this one. YOU don't get it! The Jennings trade was a bad one because of the message it sent to the clubhouse, which was "as soon as you start making big money you'll be gone." Or maybe that's more a message to the fans. Don't get attached to any of our young players. They won't be here for long. Get used to THAT. I deliver messages everyday except Sunday. Maybe the message is that we will never be playing for this year. It's always going to be better down the road, in a couple of years (sounds eerily similar to the war in Iraq rhetoric). Jennings knew how to pitch here. And he was durable. Gobbled up innings. Those two pitchers we got for him might become good, down the road, in a few years. Jennings was already good. Today. And Tavares has less power than Juan Pierre. It's hard to get excited about that no matter how many stats and numbers you throw at us. Sure he has speed but you don't have to belong to SABR to know you can't steal first base.

February 18th, 2007, 08:29 PM	#30 (permalink)
rockieprogress Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: aurora Posts: 183	Roxpert, why aren't the A's considered a farm-system for the Yankees? Or even the Giants with their signing of Zito. I've never understood the difference... Its not about what is spent, its about success on the field. Yes the Rockies haven't been successful on the field for a while (ever), but keeping certain players will probably happen once those players show some loyalty to the organization (read: Francis), and letting players that seem destined to have their agent emulate Tom Cruise, will be traded before they become a headache.