Well, I've been away for awhile. Today is opening day in major league baseball. Or was it last night? I don't know. I can't keep track. It's hard here in Denver, Colorado. Because who cares? We have nothing to look forward to but another lackluster season from the Colorado Rockies. The debate this morning seems to be whether or not the Rockies will be able to surpass the 70-win milestone this season. I'm going to go ahead and say yes. My reasoning has nothing to do with my evaluation of the pitching staff or any assumptions about Troy Tulowitzki staying healthy. The Rockies won 73 games in 2011, dipped to 64 in 2012, rebounded to win 74 in 2013, before falling back to 66 in 2014. It's an odd numbered year, so that means that the Rockies should win at least 70 games. I'll make my official prediction 72-90, good for 4th in the NL West.
I was excited as anyone when Colorado finally got a major league team in 1993. Before that, the closest big league stadium was located in Kansas City or Arlington, Texas. However, I selected as the team of my youth the Cincinnati Reds. My favorite player was Eric Davis, their swift centerfielder who was dangerous with the bat and glove as well as on the bases. He homered 27 times and stole 80 bases in 1986 and followed that up with 37 home runs and 50 steals in 1987. He was also known to make fabulous over the fence grabs to rob the opposition of home runs. I loved the uniforms and had a couple of Cincinnati Reds hats. I became acquainted with their history - supposedly the oldest major-league team, dating back to the 19th century - their glory days came when they were known as the Big Red Machine during the 1970s and won the World Series the year I was born. I tolerated their flaws - most notably the fact that their owner at the time, Marge Schott, was more or less a racist, and that their manager and most famous player in club history, Pete Rose, was banned for betting on baseball in 1989.
The Reds won the World Series in 1990, led by manager Lou Pinella, Eric Davis, shortshop Barry Larkin, third baseman Chris Sabo, pitcher Jose Rijo, and the "Nasty Boys" Rob Dibble, Randy Myers, and Norm Charlton. That was probably the apex of my life as a baseball fan. I still have all four games of that World Series on tape and recently burned it over to DVD - their four-game sweep of the "mighty" Oakland A's. I followed the Reds less and less as the years passed by. Eric Davis was traded to the Dodgers in 1992. The Rockies arrived on the scene in 1993. I graduated from high school in 1994 and left on a two-year mission in 1995. School, marriage, family all followed soon after, and now I barely follow baseball at all anymore, let alone a specific team. I'm usually aware of what's going on with the Rockies, not because I'm a huge fan but because I live here and that's what gets talked about most often.
I did follow the run of the Kansas City Royals to the World Series last year, even watched a few of the games. It reminded me of the 1980s, when there were good teams in places like Kansas City, Minnesota, Oakland, and Cincinnati and it wasn't just all about the stupid Red Sox and Yankees.
So anyways, happy opening day! Maybe I can pay a little closer attention this year.
Showing posts with label Baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baseball. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2015
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Congratulations, Texas Rangers
I haven't watched hardly any baseball this year. But I did tune in for some of Game 6 of the ALCS on Friday night, just in time for the fifth inning. That's when the Yankees walked Josh Hamilton with two outs in order to pitch to Vlad Guerrero. Only Vlad Guerrero doubled into the gap to score both runners to put the Rangers up 3-1. And then Nelson Cruz homered to score two more runs, and the Yankees' goose was cooked. The camera shot of Yankee manager Joe Girardi standing in the dugout after the home run made my day. He was probably thinking, "Great, so tonight I will be visited by the ghost of George Steinbrenner."
Normally I would not congratulate the City of Dallas on anything. The Dallas Cowboys might be the only pro sports franchise I find to be more yucky than the Yankees. And I don't care for the Dallas Mavericks either.
But the Rangers - they are okay in my book. Back in the eighties, my aunt and uncle would take us to Rangers games whenever we would visit them in Dallas. They were an average team back then and I still remember many of their players - Pete O'Brien, Scott Fletcher, Steve Buechele, Oddibe McDowell, Pete Incaviglia, and Charlie Hough. So the Rangers always had "second-favorite team" status for me (after the Reds) and I became sort of a Nolan Ryan fan in later years when he showed up and started throwing no-hitters in his forties. My aunt would sometimes send me Nolan Ryan clippings from the Dallas papers.
So I felt like I could share a little bit of the Texas joy the other night as they celebrated the first World Series appearance in nearly 50 years of franchise history. I wonder if the old Texas Rangers hat I got at Cap Night in 1986 is still floating around somewhere back home. . .
Normally I would not congratulate the City of Dallas on anything. The Dallas Cowboys might be the only pro sports franchise I find to be more yucky than the Yankees. And I don't care for the Dallas Mavericks either.
But the Rangers - they are okay in my book. Back in the eighties, my aunt and uncle would take us to Rangers games whenever we would visit them in Dallas. They were an average team back then and I still remember many of their players - Pete O'Brien, Scott Fletcher, Steve Buechele, Oddibe McDowell, Pete Incaviglia, and Charlie Hough. So the Rangers always had "second-favorite team" status for me (after the Reds) and I became sort of a Nolan Ryan fan in later years when he showed up and started throwing no-hitters in his forties. My aunt would sometimes send me Nolan Ryan clippings from the Dallas papers.
So I felt like I could share a little bit of the Texas joy the other night as they celebrated the first World Series appearance in nearly 50 years of franchise history. I wonder if the old Texas Rangers hat I got at Cap Night in 1986 is still floating around somewhere back home. . .
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
TuLong!
Clap clap, clap clap clap, clap clap clap clap, clap, clap. . . Tulo!
After Troy Tulowitzki struck out in the bottom of the ninth with men on base to end the Rockies' 2009 season, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that the season was over. But I was also relieved that I no longer had to invest my time in watching these marathon playoff baseball games. And trust me, I will waste little to no time watching the Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, and Phillies figure out who will win the 2009 World Series.
Sunday night's game in Denver started at 8:00. I quit watching shortly after 11:00 when the game was in the eighth inning. Although it was a tight game and I wanted to see who won, I had to go to class the next day and knew it would be a bad choice. And then last night's game - it started at 4:00 and ended around 7:45. So both games stretched well past the appropriate time limit for a sporting event - 3 hours.
Playoff baseball is completely ridiculous time-wise. If a runner gets on base, you are set for a 45-minute inning with the pitcher constantly stepping off the rubber, making throws over, the batter stepping out of the box, the catcher making a trip to the mound every other pitch. And then every batter works the count to 3 and 2 and fouls off 2 or 3 pitches. And then there are pitching changes, pinch hitters, and pitching changes in response to pinch hitters. And then to think, baseball is moving towards instant replay challenges! NOOOOOOO!
It's great theater, I suppose, IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WATCH ALL THAT CRAP! Which I don't know who does, unless you do sports for a living or are unemployed and single with no ambition.
This will never, ever, ever, in a million bajillion years happen, but I think baseball would benefit from some rule changes or else there might be no one left who wants to watch four-hour playoff baseball games in 20 years.
1) No batter gets to see more than eight pitches in an at bat. After eight pitches, if you haven't walked or struck out, YOU ARE OUT. No more of this endlessly fouling off pitches until you get one you like.
2) No more unlimited time-outs for hitters. Each batter can ask for time once per at-bat, or else he is charged with a strike. And that might be too generous.
3) No more unlimited mound visits for catchers. Currently, a manger/coach can only visit the mound once per pitcher per inning, or else the pitcher comes out, so there is some precedence for this. I was going to say one visit per hitter, but that's probably too generous. Three per inning might be more appropriate. The penalty would be that the pitcher would be charged with a ball.
4) I would also institute a "pitch clock" similar to a play clock or shot clock in football and basketball. They sort of have this in the rules, but I don't think it is too strictly enforced. I think they need an actual physical clock, which resets after the umpire's ball/strike count. I would think 15 seconds would be about right.
5) In conjunction with the previous suggestion, I think that the pitcher should only be allowed three pickoff moves per batter. The "pitch clock" would be reset after each pickoff throw. And after the three throws over, the advantage goes to the base stealer, who can no longer be held on base with endless throws over.
Again, none of this will ever happen, at least I don't forsee it. So why did I waste my time writing it? I guess to express my frustration with the length of these games.
After Troy Tulowitzki struck out in the bottom of the ninth with men on base to end the Rockies' 2009 season, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that the season was over. But I was also relieved that I no longer had to invest my time in watching these marathon playoff baseball games. And trust me, I will waste little to no time watching the Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, and Phillies figure out who will win the 2009 World Series.
Sunday night's game in Denver started at 8:00. I quit watching shortly after 11:00 when the game was in the eighth inning. Although it was a tight game and I wanted to see who won, I had to go to class the next day and knew it would be a bad choice. And then last night's game - it started at 4:00 and ended around 7:45. So both games stretched well past the appropriate time limit for a sporting event - 3 hours.
Playoff baseball is completely ridiculous time-wise. If a runner gets on base, you are set for a 45-minute inning with the pitcher constantly stepping off the rubber, making throws over, the batter stepping out of the box, the catcher making a trip to the mound every other pitch. And then every batter works the count to 3 and 2 and fouls off 2 or 3 pitches. And then there are pitching changes, pinch hitters, and pitching changes in response to pinch hitters. And then to think, baseball is moving towards instant replay challenges! NOOOOOOO!
It's great theater, I suppose, IF YOU HAVE TIME TO WATCH ALL THAT CRAP! Which I don't know who does, unless you do sports for a living or are unemployed and single with no ambition.
This will never, ever, ever, in a million bajillion years happen, but I think baseball would benefit from some rule changes or else there might be no one left who wants to watch four-hour playoff baseball games in 20 years.
1) No batter gets to see more than eight pitches in an at bat. After eight pitches, if you haven't walked or struck out, YOU ARE OUT. No more of this endlessly fouling off pitches until you get one you like.
2) No more unlimited time-outs for hitters. Each batter can ask for time once per at-bat, or else he is charged with a strike. And that might be too generous.
3) No more unlimited mound visits for catchers. Currently, a manger/coach can only visit the mound once per pitcher per inning, or else the pitcher comes out, so there is some precedence for this. I was going to say one visit per hitter, but that's probably too generous. Three per inning might be more appropriate. The penalty would be that the pitcher would be charged with a ball.
4) I would also institute a "pitch clock" similar to a play clock or shot clock in football and basketball. They sort of have this in the rules, but I don't think it is too strictly enforced. I think they need an actual physical clock, which resets after the umpire's ball/strike count. I would think 15 seconds would be about right.
5) In conjunction with the previous suggestion, I think that the pitcher should only be allowed three pickoff moves per batter. The "pitch clock" would be reset after each pickoff throw. And after the three throws over, the advantage goes to the base stealer, who can no longer be held on base with endless throws over.
Again, none of this will ever happen, at least I don't forsee it. So why did I waste my time writing it? I guess to express my frustration with the length of these games.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Must Sweep Beer Boys
Yesterday at this time, my feeling was pretty much that the Rockies needed to sweep the Milwaukee Brewers if they wanted to make the playoffs. And today, after the Rockies won and the Braves lost last night, I still kind of think they need to sweep the Brewers in order to avoid a play-in game with the Braves.
Say the Rockies don't sweep the Brewers, and head into the weekend with their magic number at 2. The Rockies are playing the Dodgers, who they apparently can't beat, and the Braves have the Washington Nationals, unquestionably the worst team in MLB. Will there be a combination of Rockies wins and Braves losses adding up to more than one in those circumstances? Hmmm. . . maybe, but to be on the safe side, they had better win all three against the Brewers at home.
The '09 Rockies seemed determined to make it as interesting as possible. There were people who called the wildcard for the Rockies on August 24, after Ryan Spilborghs' grand slam beat the Giants in the 14th inning. And yet, they let the Giants stay close for another four weeks. With the Giants finally vanquished, here are the Braves out of nowhere, poised to steal Colorado's spot in the playoffs unless they play good baseball this week.
Say the Rockies don't sweep the Brewers, and head into the weekend with their magic number at 2. The Rockies are playing the Dodgers, who they apparently can't beat, and the Braves have the Washington Nationals, unquestionably the worst team in MLB. Will there be a combination of Rockies wins and Braves losses adding up to more than one in those circumstances? Hmmm. . . maybe, but to be on the safe side, they had better win all three against the Brewers at home.
The '09 Rockies seemed determined to make it as interesting as possible. There were people who called the wildcard for the Rockies on August 24, after Ryan Spilborghs' grand slam beat the Giants in the 14th inning. And yet, they let the Giants stay close for another four weeks. With the Giants finally vanquished, here are the Braves out of nowhere, poised to steal Colorado's spot in the playoffs unless they play good baseball this week.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Which Game Did I Attend?
So with pennant fever again descending upon the Rocky Mountains, I decided this past weekend was the perfect chance to open up the old wallet and partake of the hometown Colorado Rockies hosting the San Francisco Giants, who are currently battling the Rockies for the lead in the National League wildcard race.
I haven't been to a Rockies game in more than two years. The cost is usually enough to keep me away. It's pretty hard to keep it cheap. I decided to partake of Wells Fargo's offer on 2-for-1 club level seating, getting two tickets for $50. And they were good seats. I don't know that they were worth $50, but they were definitely worth $25. But then there was the stupid online "convenience" fee of $8.50. And then there is the transportation. We took light rail, and even with my son's ticket being only half-price, it was still $10.50. We tried to go cheap on the food, bringing our own snacks and drinks, and paying only for our cheeseburger and Rockie Dog (which was so not worth it). That's another $12. And I bought I game program and scorecard for $5. So that's $86. I suppose there are worse deals you could find for $86. I can't imagine how entire families can afford to go to a game together.
And so which of the games in the four game series do you think we had the privilege of attending?
A. A high-scoring affair which featured the Rockies coming from behind, featuring a seven-run inning, which resulted in a 14-11 victory.
B. A fourteen-inning thriller which remained deadlocked at 1-1 for much of the game and was filled with numerous strategic moves and injured players coming off the bench to contribute, until the Giants broke through with three runs in the top of the 14th. No worries, though, as the home team was victorious thanks to a game-ending grand slam in the bottom of the 14th.
C. A duel between two of the top National League pitchers, in which the Rockies prevailed when my namesake crushed a home run into the second deck in right field off of the starting pitcher from this year's NL All-Star team.
D. A humdrum game which saw the Rockies fall behind 3-0 in the first inning and never quite recover. The home team strikes out 12 times, commits three errors, and seems to ground into inning-ending double plays whenever they get a rally started.
If you guessed "D", then you are absolutely right! You're tonight's winner!
Just my luck. Oh, well, it was still a fun trip. We'll see if I make it back to Coors Field before 2011.
I haven't been to a Rockies game in more than two years. The cost is usually enough to keep me away. It's pretty hard to keep it cheap. I decided to partake of Wells Fargo's offer on 2-for-1 club level seating, getting two tickets for $50. And they were good seats. I don't know that they were worth $50, but they were definitely worth $25. But then there was the stupid online "convenience" fee of $8.50. And then there is the transportation. We took light rail, and even with my son's ticket being only half-price, it was still $10.50. We tried to go cheap on the food, bringing our own snacks and drinks, and paying only for our cheeseburger and Rockie Dog (which was so not worth it). That's another $12. And I bought I game program and scorecard for $5. So that's $86. I suppose there are worse deals you could find for $86. I can't imagine how entire families can afford to go to a game together.
And so which of the games in the four game series do you think we had the privilege of attending?
A. A high-scoring affair which featured the Rockies coming from behind, featuring a seven-run inning, which resulted in a 14-11 victory.
B. A fourteen-inning thriller which remained deadlocked at 1-1 for much of the game and was filled with numerous strategic moves and injured players coming off the bench to contribute, until the Giants broke through with three runs in the top of the 14th. No worries, though, as the home team was victorious thanks to a game-ending grand slam in the bottom of the 14th.
C. A duel between two of the top National League pitchers, in which the Rockies prevailed when my namesake crushed a home run into the second deck in right field off of the starting pitcher from this year's NL All-Star team.
D. A humdrum game which saw the Rockies fall behind 3-0 in the first inning and never quite recover. The home team strikes out 12 times, commits three errors, and seems to ground into inning-ending double plays whenever they get a rally started.
If you guessed "D", then you are absolutely right! You're tonight's winner!
Just my luck. Oh, well, it was still a fun trip. We'll see if I make it back to Coors Field before 2011.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Why the Colorado Rockies are Lame
I was frustrated with the Rockies earlier this year. I seriously wanted them to just move the team somewhere else and then burn Coors Field to the ground and pretend the whole major league baseball in Denver thing never happened.
Then they finally set fire to something - Clint Hurdle's managerial job. And the Rockies went on their June tear, winning 21 of 25 games at one point - and presto, they are now back in the running for the playoffs. Only they are still 9 games behind the Dodgers in the NL West, so it is unlikely that they will win the division. So they are competing with a slew of other teams for the NL wildcard. Everyone seems to agree that the Rockies don't have enough to earn playing time in October as presently constituted.
This past week the Toronto Blue Jays said their ace pitcher, Roy Halladay, was available for trade. If you're not familiar with the guy, he is a six-time All-Star who won the 2003 Cy Young Award. His record is 74-30 over the past five years. And. . . he's a Colorado native. He pitched for Arvada West High School.
So, I, like many other like-minded fans, immediately thought this would be perfect for the Rockies. An ace pitcher comes home to help the local team make a run back to the World Series. It's sort of the baseball version of the Chauncey Billups story. Maybe Roy Halladay would even decide to wear #7 for his first start and John Elway would come to throw out the first pitch.
So will the Rockies do it? Nope. No one is even talking about them doing it. Except for local talk radio pundits who mostly talk about how stupid the Rockies are for not doing it. It's similar to the "will they sign Matt Holliday?" debate - you already know that they won't do anything, so what is the debate? So Halladay (almost the same name, but different guy) will end up with the Phillies or Angels or on any contending team that doesn't wear purple pinstripes.
It's not like the Rockies don't have players to trade. They've been crapping their pants for two years trying to figure out what to do with two third basemen - the incumbent Garrett Atkins and the prospect Ian Stewart. Now, they've apparently decided that since Atkins is struggling at the plate this year he is therefore only good to be traded for a relief pitcher. I say keep Atkins, and trade Stewart as part of a deal to get Halladay.
Of course, just Stewart wouldn't be enough. But I suppose the Rockies could throw in an outfielder since they have four guys to play two outfield spots - Carlos Gonzalez, Dexter Fowler, Ryan Spilborghs, and Seth Smith. And then let the Blue Jays pick a couple of pitchers from the farm system - because chances are whatever pitching prospects the Rockies have will not grow up to have stellar careers in Denver anyways.
But the Rockies won't do it. They won't even think about doing it. It goes against their mission statement, which is to consistently win 75 games per year.
Maybe we should go back to that burning Coors Field to the ground idea. . .
Then they finally set fire to something - Clint Hurdle's managerial job. And the Rockies went on their June tear, winning 21 of 25 games at one point - and presto, they are now back in the running for the playoffs. Only they are still 9 games behind the Dodgers in the NL West, so it is unlikely that they will win the division. So they are competing with a slew of other teams for the NL wildcard. Everyone seems to agree that the Rockies don't have enough to earn playing time in October as presently constituted.
This past week the Toronto Blue Jays said their ace pitcher, Roy Halladay, was available for trade. If you're not familiar with the guy, he is a six-time All-Star who won the 2003 Cy Young Award. His record is 74-30 over the past five years. And. . . he's a Colorado native. He pitched for Arvada West High School.
So, I, like many other like-minded fans, immediately thought this would be perfect for the Rockies. An ace pitcher comes home to help the local team make a run back to the World Series. It's sort of the baseball version of the Chauncey Billups story. Maybe Roy Halladay would even decide to wear #7 for his first start and John Elway would come to throw out the first pitch.
So will the Rockies do it? Nope. No one is even talking about them doing it. Except for local talk radio pundits who mostly talk about how stupid the Rockies are for not doing it. It's similar to the "will they sign Matt Holliday?" debate - you already know that they won't do anything, so what is the debate? So Halladay (almost the same name, but different guy) will end up with the Phillies or Angels or on any contending team that doesn't wear purple pinstripes.
It's not like the Rockies don't have players to trade. They've been crapping their pants for two years trying to figure out what to do with two third basemen - the incumbent Garrett Atkins and the prospect Ian Stewart. Now, they've apparently decided that since Atkins is struggling at the plate this year he is therefore only good to be traded for a relief pitcher. I say keep Atkins, and trade Stewart as part of a deal to get Halladay.
Of course, just Stewart wouldn't be enough. But I suppose the Rockies could throw in an outfielder since they have four guys to play two outfield spots - Carlos Gonzalez, Dexter Fowler, Ryan Spilborghs, and Seth Smith. And then let the Blue Jays pick a couple of pitchers from the farm system - because chances are whatever pitching prospects the Rockies have will not grow up to have stellar careers in Denver anyways.
But the Rockies won't do it. They won't even think about doing it. It goes against their mission statement, which is to consistently win 75 games per year.
Maybe we should go back to that burning Coors Field to the ground idea. . .
The object of the Rockies' desire. . . not
Monday, April 6, 2009
Opening Day
Today is opening day in baseball. I haven't cared about opening day for many, many years - and haven't cared that much about any of the other days, either.
(I've got Rockies-Dbacks on the office radio right now - the Rockies just gave up a home run to the first batter of the season. Another great season of baseball in the Mile High City on the way!)
The reason I haven't cared? Overemphasis on the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Mets. I hate all those teams - yet they always do well because the economic cards are stacked in their favor. I miss the days when you had the KC Royals winning a World Series, and then the Minnesota Twins winning two World Series in five years, and the Oakland A's and Cincinnati Reds also claiming late 80's/early 90's championships. Maybe we are headed back in the right direction with last year's Philadelphia/Tampa Bay World Series.
But my pledge for this summer is to try and care a little bit.
Not about the Rockies, though. I'll probably follow them some because it is unavoidable living in Denver. But I've never been passionate about the Rockies.
I am also going to try and follow my favorite team when I was a youth - the Cincinnati Reds. That is something I haven't been doing, I guess because like the Rockies, for the most part the Reds have not been competitive in years.
More on this train of thought the next time I get a chance to write.
(I've got Rockies-Dbacks on the office radio right now - the Rockies just gave up a home run to the first batter of the season. Another great season of baseball in the Mile High City on the way!)
The reason I haven't cared? Overemphasis on the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Mets. I hate all those teams - yet they always do well because the economic cards are stacked in their favor. I miss the days when you had the KC Royals winning a World Series, and then the Minnesota Twins winning two World Series in five years, and the Oakland A's and Cincinnati Reds also claiming late 80's/early 90's championships. Maybe we are headed back in the right direction with last year's Philadelphia/Tampa Bay World Series.
But my pledge for this summer is to try and care a little bit.
Not about the Rockies, though. I'll probably follow them some because it is unavoidable living in Denver. But I've never been passionate about the Rockies.
I am also going to try and follow my favorite team when I was a youth - the Cincinnati Reds. That is something I haven't been doing, I guess because like the Rockies, for the most part the Reds have not been competitive in years.
More on this train of thought the next time I get a chance to write.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bye
Well, it finally happened. The Rockies traded away 2007 MVP runner-up Matt Holliday to the Oakland A’s.
The general reaction in Denver was one of outrage and disappointment that the Rockies didn’t pony up the big bucks to keep their star player. I think that the fans and media should have had such feelings out of their system by now, because this day had been coming for well over a year, long before the Rockies made their fantastic run to the World Series. The chances of Matt Holliday staying in Colorado past the 2009 season were roughly 2.163%.
Matt Holliday wants the absolute most money he can get. It’s his career – he’s only going to be a professional baseball player once.
The Brothers Monfort apparently want to be a “small market” club like Minnesota or Oakland, developing young talent and then shipping it out the door when payday comes. I wondered if their philosophy of running the Rockies on the cheap might change with the World Series appearance. Looks like no. Hey, it’s their money. They can spend it how they choose.
Personally, I think the Rockies made the right call. He’s a good player, but I don’t think he’s worth $150 million. Paying Todd Helton top dollar a few years ago didn’t work out so well.
Of course, the Rox won’t be going to the World Series in 2009 without him. . . but I think they’re okay with that. The fans won’t stop coming despite what they might say.
The general reaction in Denver was one of outrage and disappointment that the Rockies didn’t pony up the big bucks to keep their star player. I think that the fans and media should have had such feelings out of their system by now, because this day had been coming for well over a year, long before the Rockies made their fantastic run to the World Series. The chances of Matt Holliday staying in Colorado past the 2009 season were roughly 2.163%.
Matt Holliday wants the absolute most money he can get. It’s his career – he’s only going to be a professional baseball player once.
The Brothers Monfort apparently want to be a “small market” club like Minnesota or Oakland, developing young talent and then shipping it out the door when payday comes. I wondered if their philosophy of running the Rockies on the cheap might change with the World Series appearance. Looks like no. Hey, it’s their money. They can spend it how they choose.
Personally, I think the Rockies made the right call. He’s a good player, but I don’t think he’s worth $150 million. Paying Todd Helton top dollar a few years ago didn’t work out so well.
Of course, the Rox won’t be going to the World Series in 2009 without him. . . but I think they’re okay with that. The fans won’t stop coming despite what they might say.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Sucktember
So there's my attempt at coining a new term. A failed attempt, I guess, because I just googled "Sucktember" and there were 120 results. So it's not knew. But maybe I'll hurry and print it up on some T-shirts. Do you think they'll sell? Or do you think the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club will attempt to copyright "Sucktember" for their exclusive use?
Has anything been more painful to follow than the National League West this season? The Arizona Diamondbacks jumped out to a fast start and then said, "Hey, guys, you know what? We changed our minds - is anyone else interested in winning this thing?" The Rockies had several opportunities to jump all over that and take control. And several times it appeared they were ready to do just that - they'd go on a nice little streak, and just when the time was right - they'd crap out and do something like get swept by the Washington Nationals.
The Rockies finally surrendered with a nice seven-game losing streak earlier this month. The D-backs were swept by the Dodgers and handed the division over at that point. Whatever. I don't really watch baseball anymore. I saw half of the All-Star Game this year and maybe I'll watch some of the playoffs (although listening to Tim McCarver and Joe Buck is a huge deterrent). I didn't even listen to the Rockies on 850 KOA much this year because there was no point. I thought I would get to Coors Field for at least one game this summer but I never made it.
I don't know what the point of this post even is. I guess just to say, "Yep, these are the Rockies I know. Nothing says Colorado baseball like 76-86."
Has anything been more painful to follow than the National League West this season? The Arizona Diamondbacks jumped out to a fast start and then said, "Hey, guys, you know what? We changed our minds - is anyone else interested in winning this thing?" The Rockies had several opportunities to jump all over that and take control. And several times it appeared they were ready to do just that - they'd go on a nice little streak, and just when the time was right - they'd crap out and do something like get swept by the Washington Nationals.
The Rockies finally surrendered with a nice seven-game losing streak earlier this month. The D-backs were swept by the Dodgers and handed the division over at that point. Whatever. I don't really watch baseball anymore. I saw half of the All-Star Game this year and maybe I'll watch some of the playoffs (although listening to Tim McCarver and Joe Buck is a huge deterrent). I didn't even listen to the Rockies on 850 KOA much this year because there was no point. I thought I would get to Coors Field for at least one game this summer but I never made it.
I don't know what the point of this post even is. I guess just to say, "Yep, these are the Rockies I know. Nothing says Colorado baseball like 76-86."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)