Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you'd prefer an owner who would either lie to their fans or make huge monetary mistakes that will cripple their teams success in the future?


Ahh, okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, thats exactly what I said.

This ownership has never shown a commitment to winning. They have been top third in profits and bottom third in payroll. They will make money if they spend more because Denver will fill the stadium with a winning product.

I don't think its too much to ask an ownership show a commitment to success.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having a policy of not signing guys to more than 4 years is not a bad policy. In fact it's a very good policy, and a sign that the Rockies have very good management with people who know what they're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's irrelevant. When they are asking if they are gonna make an effort of signing their MVP candidate they totally dodge the issue. What the fans want is a commitment.. something that even says "We're definitely gonna be in talks with Matt and try to keep him here".. Not saying "Well, we screwed up signing our last star!"

Just want to see a commitment from the owners. There is no reason at all to say ownership has been good here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's irrelevant right now is, talking about a long term deal for Holliday. Scott Boras has absolutely no intention of allowing his client to sign a deal prior to hitting free agency.

Our best bet is to offer MVP money for a shorter term (say, 4 years at $18m per), and hope they see giving up first two free agent years is worth still hitting the free agent market at age 32. That could actually be a win/win, because after that time, Helton's contract is off the books.

But really, the point is that in terms of trying to get Holliday signed, Boras has as much to do with that as the Monforts.

That said, the Monforts really don't have the pockets to run this ship right, and should sell to Mark Cuban. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

My point wasn't that a 4 year deal for Holliday wouldn't be a good decision. It's just that the Monforts have never really done anything that makes a statement to the fans that they care about winning.

Lots will be clear this offseason, though. I really do hope the best.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

Well, as a Rox fan since their original amateur draft and Bend, Oregon days, I kinda have to respectfully disagree. The Hampton and Neagle signings may have hamstrung us for years, but they were done when attendance was high, and were an attempt to get back to winnings. Hampton -- that washout was partly bad luck, he should have been able to pitch in Coors. Neagle -- that was just idiotic, signing a fly ball pitcher (pre-humidor) to a $55M deal.

But both were examples of ownership opening up the wallets, and their outcomes were what led them to closing them.

Hopefully, now will be different, and if they can't step up, they need to step up, or sell off.

As for the 4 year deal, I think that kind of offer is the only one that Boras/Holliday is likely to accept, and if it's made and turned down, that's not on ownership.

It's not that the Monforts never tried. It's that they tried once, failed badly, and gave up ever trying again.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that the Monforts never tried. It's that they tried once, failed badly, and gave up ever trying again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably more fair than what I had been saying.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

...Except that it's been proven that signing players to long contracts is almost always a mistake. And you guys are criticizing the owners for not doing this, and citing it as the reason for you not supporting the team until they made the playoffs?

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

[ QUOTE ]
...Except that it's been proven that signing players to long contracts is almost always a mistake. And you guys are criticizing the owners for not doing this, and citing it as the reason for you not supporting the team until they made the playoffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on man.. I said repeatedly the issue isn't the long contract and I agreed that 4 year deal is probably right.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

Who's "you guys"? I've never stopped supporting the Rockies, and the only years I didn't go to any games were the years I was living in Washington, DC.

And yeah, 7 year contracts are outrageous...but they were almost de rigeuer during 2000-2001, and the Rox weren't the only team to get burned by them.

Really, any contract over five years for a position player, and 3-4 years for a pitcher, is playing Russian Roulette. However, as long Steinbrenner and Moreno are writing the checks, there will be a few teams that overextend.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will someone be kind enough to explain the Varlos/Challenger bet backstory? It's kinda funny how Challenger totally ignores those posts and just keeps on posting.

Also, bear in mind that someone taking the time to explain the bet will further expose Challenger and perhaps lead to Varlos getting paid (if he is in fact owed). Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this thread challenger, apparently a HUGE Colorado homer, was claiming that it was ridiculous for anyone to think the '06 Colts had a good shot to win the Super Bowl. TheRover and I each bet him $100 (and MCS bet him $20) that the Colts would advance further into the playoffs than the AFC team of his choice (the Broncos, of course). Foolishly, I said that the honor system would be fine.

Once the Broncos failed to make the playoffs, those who had bets with challenger PM'ed him, but the only apparent reply was his telling one of us to [censored] off. He then took a long hiatus from the message board and continued to ignore all requests that he pay.

For the time being I've decided to hold off on trying to get him IP-banned, as he'd then have no incentive to stop being a welshing scumbag.

Incidentally, challenger, if you're reading: man up and pay your debt and all is forgiven. This is ridiculous.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

Varlos,

LOL, WOW. Thanks for that. He must be pretty busto if he can't pay a friggin' $100 bet. That and/or he doesn't care about his internet rep, as evidenced by his return to posting under that name.

Speaking of TheRover, his internet lover kyleb and I had a bet last year on something. It was for like $40. I never doubted that he would pay (it was as much a lock as me winning the bet IMO) and of course he made good. I never thought an amount as low as $100 would need friggin escrow.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

Varlos, all,

Check out challenger's awesome contributions to this thread overnight. Ah, nothing says class like taunting the fans of a team whose playoff hopes were just dashed on a controversial play in extra innings.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

You need to pay up.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

challenger is an enormous douchebag troll - i don't think he cares. IP ban seems in order.

Re: finally gonna have a tiebreaker game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
baseball will have instant replay next year, book it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got action. I'll put up $500 against your $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent.