Quietest first day of Spring Training EVER

[rockieprogress]

General, Taveras has an arm, Pierre doesn't.

Therein lies the difference.

[Roxpert]

Quit with the Oakland analogy already, RP. We've been through that one before.

[GerryInCS]

Originally Posted by Newman

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.

And neither do the two main parties. I'd be wasting my vote anyway as the Reps aren't going to win the next election.

Now back to Baseball

Below C, read my post again. I mentioned three Rox in that post (Hawpe, Holliday, Atkins). By the end of the 2009 season, I expect that neither of them will likely be a Rockie. This team is not in it for the long haul as that requires spending money on talent. Helton doesn't count because the Monforts were not the controlling partners, McMorris was. There's nothing in evidence that the either the Monforts, O'dowd and/or Hurdle is committed to building a winning team/organization. In fact, it appears that they are building a feeder for the more elite teams in baseball (something the Rox will never be).

[Roxpert]

Gerry, you concisely summed up the situation. The Monforts are mainly concerned with running a PROFITABLE franchise, and building a sustainable winner (while desired) is a secondary goal. And they aren't about to take on any undue long-term financial risks in attaining their goals. They are "institutionally incapable" of doing so, because all of them were there to live through the trauma of the Hampton/Neagle/Helton signing disasters.

They have never been willing to "get back on the horse" after falling off in 2001. Kudos to them for building a nice farm system, but building a sustainable winner at the MLB-level usually takes more than that, and these owners don't have the right stuff to make that happen.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

these owners don't have the right stuff to make that happen.

Neither do dozens of owners in professional sports who aren't amongst the biggest spenders in their industry.

As a GM of one of those MANY teams, you can either just adopt the quitter attitude expressed here of utter hopelessness, or actually put together a strategy that fits your situation best and still find success down a different road that isn't paved in gold.

Money is the easy way out, no doubt, although it has resulted in more than enough dead ends as well from people trying to buy a championship and failing miserably. But there are other roads to take that can also bring success so long as a strong strategy is put into place and intelligent choices are made.

Keep shouting, but that isn't going to make any more money appear. No new owners are going to magically ride in on a white horse to save the day with shiny new credit cards to spend to your fan's delight.

It is what it is, and it will remain that way. Any other analysis of that situation in the near-term is dealing with fiction and fairy tales, and not all that relevant to the actual circumstances. They CAN be successful down this road, as even most skeptics have agreed even if it isn't preferred. The reality is that they are going to have to find success by making some intelligent baseball decisions, and those can be fairly evaluated within the context of their fairly common situation within sports in which money will not be the deciding factor to measure improvement as it is with some teams on the other extreme.

[Roxpert]

I'm not "shouting", HiAspire, and please spare us another lecture about how we can win with sound baseball decisions and not a lot of money. I've read that same lecture about 100 other times.

I was simply endorsing Gerry's post and adding some additional support to the points he made. The Monforts are weak owners, and I know I've made that point about 100 other times too. We are talking on this thread about why there is so much pessimism about the Rockies' outlook, in response to Below-C-Level's inquiry.

So we get a little repetitive sometimes. Both of us. But there always seems to be some new guy who comes out of the woodwork (Below-C-Level, PurnGoldy on the old board) who attacks some long-time fans for their sober and, I think, realistic views of the team. When that happens, responses are appropriate.

[hiaspire]

And spare me how you are allowed to say the same thing constantly over and over, yet can gripe about others justifiably for just responding to your own posts. None of these people are coming out of the woodwork - as everyone who has posted positively in this thread has 30+ posts here in the short time things have been back up here. If you can speak about why you are negative, others can speak about why they are positive and believe good things can happen despite the obstacles you can't see us overcoming and want to tell us that over and over.

We are talking on this thread about why there is so much pessimism about the Rockies' outlook

Exactly. And mine is a more POSITIVE take on our current situation where HOPE DOES EXIST, in AGREEMENT with the other similar posts of that nature opposed to the negativity that you cite in this thread.

The negative side is not the only acceptable answer. It is also not the only viewpoint that gets a free pass to repeat itself as much as it wants while all responses to that duplication are outlawed because they disagree. If you don't want to hear responses to points, then don't make the same points or harp on that same issue. You can't be the only one allowed to address that point and stop all others from responding to your statements.

I'm trying to bring it back to reality where we have some talent on the field and reason to pay attention to that to see how it develops. Your solutions and constant focus often involves fictional storybook endings that have little to do with our reality. Rants of frustration about things that aren't likely to change are fine, but it makes much more sense I think to analyze the team within the proper context of reality and evaluate decisions within that scope based upon their baseball merit. That's addressing the actual situation logically, instead of just wishing everything was vastly different than reality somehow. When things sway toward Neverland, a dose of reality is required to get things back onto the field within the realistic boundaries where success can still be accomplished without magic wands or wads of cash.

It is what we've got, and it can be done. No doubt about that. Will it? That's an issue to properly analyze as decisions are made on the field and events unfold. But there is certainly hope and reasons for optimism based upon the talent in place, if they can make better choices along the way. That's not unrealistic. Coming up with a plan and making smart decisions isn't very expensive, but failing to do so is almost always extremely costly.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

And spare me how you are allowed to say the same thing constantly over and over, yet can gripe about others justifiably for just responding to your own posts.

HiAspire, there's really something wrong when you don't accept my admission in my last post that we are both repetitive and have written the same thing 100 times. I just don't like to be lectured to, as is your want.

If you can speak about why you are negative, others can speak about why they are positive and believe good things can happen despite the obstacles you can't see us overcoming and want to tell us that over and over.

And nowhere did I write that positive posts aren't allowed or are to be griped about. I am only griping about your tired old lectures. But let's both stop repeating ourselves, unless in response to someone who hasn't read us before, OK?

The negative side is not the only acceptable answer. It is also not the only viewpoint that gets a free pass to repeat itself as much as it wants while all responses to that duplication are outlawed because they disagree.

You're out of line if you think I said anything of the kind. I welcome opposing, well thought-out opinions, and never said such diverging opinions are "outlawed". Quit misreprenting me as somehow intolerant of other viewpoints. I find that a bit rude and insulting.

[sg8335aa]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Addendum: Heck, there isn't even any talk of BA's prospect list that came out today. Has SG even fallen asleep??

I'm alive! just haven't been around for a while. I'm ready Roxpert....what do you want to talk about?

[hiaspire]

RE: Outlawed

It isn't a post from you it seems unless there is a comment about "Quit with this" or "Spare me of that". You make your repetitive comments on a thread, but demand others not respond so you can be "spared" when we are not from you in kind in the first place.

I can accept your admission. I certainly don't disagree with you there. It is great that you agree to your part in the repetition, but that is beside the point I was making there. I wasn't going to just agree with that, but express the apparent inequity in hopes for better understanding. I also specifically was addressing the most fitting attitude from fans this spring by taking a different slant at it.

There is nobody here who posts 30+ times that doesn't know you think we need new owners and to spend more money. Nobody who has ever read this board is unclear about that. That isn't a viable excuse where it is okay for you to keep going back to that issue but not for others to respond to you. That isn't fitting this situation.

I don't bring those things up. Almost NEVER. I only respond when conversation is ALREADY underway on that topic such as this. I am not the initiator of such discussion ever. I just react to what has been already said, and I am not the ONLY ONE forbidden from entering it.

I intentionally addressed the question before specifically with a slant toward attitude (pertaining to pessimism/optimism viewpoints being discussed) and how no GM in sports no matter their owner can afford to just take on a quitter attitude as fans can (and mostly have here). A GM needs to have that hope that something can be done on the field no matter who the owner is, as we see all the time in sports. And it can be done, if done right. It is within his power, and a path so many others have crossed before.

This board supposedly prides itself on intelligent analysis. My point is so let's switch more to analyzing what happens on the field in terms of our actual reality versus just complaining about money or wishing our woes away to no avail. That's the more intellectual ATTITUDE to apply to it, and I think more optimism can be found there. Not much comes from just complaining about money, where a lot can be done coming at it from a different attitude. That's where I am coming from as a fan on that question about pessimism versus optimism, and that is where actual decisions can properly be evaluated in our given reality.


Based on your response, we probably can agree on much of what you just said. Just don't go to that topic again and again if you don't want to generate other responses to it. If you can, others can too. I only respond to statements I disagree with and am not doing anything different from others in the least bit (yourself especially). That is on you to not start something if you are just going to complain about it when others join in. And everyone has a right to respond to ongoing discussions, not just you -- and there are only so many ways you can say the owners suck and we need to spend more money so your responses are not any different in that respect. I certainly tried to make mine mostly about the attitude from fans this spring and what was most fitting.

[Roxpert]

SG, I think Tracy got a lot of heat in his chat for rating Iannetta down at #8. He tried to justify it by saying the ranking is based on potential, but it still seemed awfully low. What did you think of Tracy's rankings? (He is the one who ranks them after talking with scouts and Rockies insiders).

[Roxpert]

HiAspire, it is only your lectures I object to. They are rude and insufferable.

You also lie about my wanting to squelch opposing views.

[sg8335aa]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

SG, I think Tracy got a lot of heat in his chat for rating Iannetta down at #8. He tried to justify it by saying the ranking is based on potential, but it still seemed awfully low. What did you think of Tracy's rankings? (He is the one who ranks them after talking with scouts and Rockies insiders).

I've gone back and forth on this one for a while. Here is where I ended up: I don't think that Iannetta is a Top 5 prospect for the Rockies. I would agree that Tulo, Morales, Hirsh, Fowler, Stewart (in some order) should all be ranked above him. So that said, I think somewhere in the #6 to #8 range would make sense for him.

So if Tracy did under-rate Iannetta, I think it was only by 2 places at max. I think that the Jimenez, Reynolds, Iannetta range is very much up for debate. After a lot of thought, I think that Iannetta should have been at least ranked above Reynolds (and thus #7). Reynolds needs another year of pro-performance under his belt before I'd rank him that high. As for Jimenez, it really depends on whether or not you think he can stay in the rotation or if you think he'll eventually have to move to the bullpen. If rotation, I can see the case for Jimenez #6. If bullpen, then I'd say #7 (with Iannetta #6).

Conclusion: He's not too far off in the rankings....but he did slight him a bit too much.

[hiaspire]

TR did seem kind of ticked that people took that as a downgrade for Iannetta. I sent in another question that didn't get posted that tried to explain why so many people took it that way (even if unintended) and related it to a statement he made himself about Tulo's upside.

He said something about Tulo's potential to be amongst the elite at that position. Going by such standards, it sounds like he thinks Iannetta can also find himself there at his position. It certainly doesn't seem like Reynolds or Jimenez have the same realistic odds of becoming elite pitchers. Pitchers certainly can reasonably be assigned higher value for a franchise, but it just seems to most that Iannetta has a much better chance of becoming a difference-maker at his important area than those other arms that might fit somewhere within the middle of a rotation someday but not significantly higher to grand acclaim.

If one is to believe that TR tries to protect the Rockies (as some do), an arguement could also be made that Reynolds was rated highly because of his position in the draft and to justify that somewhat where most thought it wasn't deserved. He certainly tried to defend that pick strongly in the chat to most who questioned it.

It also seems like they might have over-compensated for the mistake of rating Fowler too low previously by shooting him up now, although he got more and more attention this year as a prospect. I would certainly rate Iannetta above Reynolds/Jimenez and possibly above Fowler at this point.

[BigRapidsJackass]

SG on TR on Iannetta:

Here is where I ended up: I don't think that Iannetta is a Top 5 prospect for the Rockies. I would agree that Tulo, Morales, Hirsh, Fowler, Stewart (in some order) should all be ranked above him. So that said, I think somewhere in the #6 to #8 range would make sense for him.

The relatively low ranking for Iannetta is, of course, primarily a function of the large number of future "impact" prospects in the organization.

But it is also a function of BA's typical bias in prospect rankings. They always prefer the two in the bush to the bird in the hand. I think there are obvious reasons for this. They're trying to sell subscriptions, and any Iannetta write-up would probably read something like this: "The closest thing to a can't-miss prospect in the Rockies organization, or maybe even in all of baseball, but with his upside may be limited to that of a better-than-average starting catcher, with little star potential."

And that's just not as sexy as "The next Cal Ripken." Think about it: 5 years down the road, Ringolsby would like to be able to brag that he saw future stardom in Dexter Fowler when he was just a 19 year old in low A ball. "I saw a solid everyday catcher in the 22 year old Chris Iannetta" just isn't a very intriguing storyline.

But I think this is foolish. Let's say the percentages break down like this:

Iannetta: 5% chance of being a future multi-year All Star, 60% chance of being a roughly MLB average regular catcher over at least 6-8 years with perhaps an All Star appearance, 25% chance of sticking on a MLB roster for 6-8 years with at least some time as a starter, 10% chance of being a bust who is out of MLB within 3 years. In other words, little star potential but also an extremely low "bust" risk.

Fowler: 20% chance of being a future multi-year All Star, 20% chance of being a roughly MLB average CFer over at least 6-8 years with perhaps an All Star appearance, 20% chance of sticking on a MLB roster for 6-8 years with at least some time as a starter, 40% chance of being a bust who either never makes it to MLB or is out of MLB within 3 years of his debut. In other words, considerably more star potential, but with a pretty high risk of being a total or near-total bust.

I say BA fails to properly factor in the "bust" potential of lower minor leaguers like Fowler, or even Morales.

I'll always rate the Iannetta types higher until someone shows me that there's such a thing as an A-ball "sure thing."