Monday Morning Rockpile:

by Russ on Aug 18, 2008 8:30 AM MDT in Rockpile

Troy Renck has a new mailbag and answers a question about pitching coaches and Leo Mazzone:

Why is it that Leo Mazzone hasn't caught onto a team since he was let go from Baltimore? With the future of the rotation needing direction (Ubaldo Jimenez, Franklin Morales, Greg Reynolds), could you see the Rockies shaking things up by replacing Bob Apodaca with Mazzone?
-- Chad, Kearney, Neb.

Chad - Anytime a team struggles, there are understandable calls for new coaches. And Leo Mazzone is considered one of the best. For starters, I don't see Apodaca going anywhere. Since he filled out his first staff for the 2003 season, manager Clint Hurdle has replaced only one coach based on performance -- hitting instructor Duane Espy after the 2006 season. Apodaca has known Hurdle for nearly 30 years and has coached for him at both the minor and major league levels. Hurdle is loyal to him. Apodaca, in my opinion, has grown into the job, communicating better by communicating less. He's the same coach that led the Rockies to their lowest ERA ever last season.

[...]

That last sentence before I cut off the answer is just sitting out there alone in a pond. Let's also take a look at what Apodaca's done each season since he started his job with the Rockies:

2003: 5.51 R/G (worst in the NL), 5.20 ERA (worst in the NL), 95 ERA+ (7th worst in the NL)
2004: 5.70 R/G (worst in the NL), 5.54 ERA (worst in the NL), 89 ERA+ (2nd worst in the NL)
2005: 5.32 R/G (2nd worst in the NL), 5.13 ERA (2nd worst in the NL), 93 ERA+ (tied for 3rd worst in the NL)
2006: 5.01 R/G (tied for 4th worst in the NL), 4.66 ERA (4th worst in the NL), 105 ERA+ (tied for 3rd best in the NL)
2007: 4.65 R/G (8th best in the NL), 4.32 ERA (8th best in the NL), 111 ERA+ (3rd best in the NL)
2008 (through 126 games): 5.19 R/G (2nd worst in the NL), 4.88 ERA (2nd worst in the NL), 95 ERA+ (6th worst in the NL)

So, yeah, he is the coach who led the Rockies to their lowest ERA ever in a season, but he's also consistently led a pitching staff that ranked at the bottom of the league. Not that we didn't already know that. Apparently Hurdle's loyalty blinds him to what's actually going on.

Renck also fills us in on some attendance numbers and tackles a question about when the best time to let a manager go.

Patrick Saunders sees moving Jorge De La Rosa back into the rotation as a move for 2009:

The decision to go with De la Rosa was made as much for 2009 as for the present. De La Rosa is eligible for arbitration this winter and the Rockies want to get a long look at him.

Might want to pencil in JDLR's name as a guy battling for a rotation spot come next spring.

Terry Frei muses on the Rockies's triumvirate of power, hoping that regime change is a complete one if things don't change for the franchise.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A deep-pocketed owner with a thirst for winning, and even the spotlight, could be king in this market.
If the Rockies call a “time for a change” news conference, it should cover everyone. The ownership should fire itself, too.

Here! Here! yea for Frei! Seriously, this is what is wrong with franchise. One of the worst run in all of baseball. At least Seattle put money into it’s organization. (in all the wrong spots sure)

Brains and money is king….Red Sox
Brains and no money is good….Twins, A’s, Marlins
Money and no brains is good too….Mets, Dodgers
No money and no brains is terrible…..Rockies, Nationals

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 9:05 AM MDT 0 recs

How funny

that you mention some of these teams. Besides the Red Sox and Marlins, only 1 of these teams has even made an appearance in the WS since our inaugural season of ‘93. That was the Mets in 2000, so of the 6 teams listed as much better run organizations than the Rox, only 2 have been in the WS more than us. The Dodgers have not been to a WS in 20 years, the Twins since 1991 and the A’s in 1990, so I’m not sure how you are measuring all of this. I am not arguing that I like what the A’s and Twins do w/ their money and I think that’s where the Rox are headed, but to call them out as better and yet not even a WS appearance since ’93, thats hard to say. I like the consistency though and I hope we develop that.

Being the Red Sox is great, but I don’t ever see that happening in Denver, no matter who the owner is. I think comparing us to the Nationals after a WS last year is a joke, and the type of negativity that is typical from many fans.

by smokinRox on Aug 18, 2008 9:39 AM MDT up 1 recs

Being in the World Series

is not the measuring stick I use, nor should anyone else. Being a competitive, team, that has a realistic shot of a play off race is. The Mets for example, piss away a ton of money, haven’t done much in the last 5 years….but they are in a playoff race fairly consistently at least. They play meaningful games in August of every year. There fans have a reason to look at the scoreboard. Besides the year the Rockies won the Wild Card, and last year, when were they even IN a playoff race, and playing meaningful games in August? Hell…July?

Using the World Series in 07 as a white wash, for this organization ‘s ills is not the correct way to measure success. It was a fluke. A wonderful, amazing, spectacular experience….but still a fluke. The Atlanta Braves were the model franchise, winning a record number of division crowns…but had little World Series success…….does that make them the same as the Pirates? No it’s about consistently winning…and consistently playing meaningful games in August…or July…..(May ?)

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 10:13 AM MDT up 0 recs

While I agree with some of your overarching premise,

In the particulars you seem to be missing some crucial points. The Braves of the nineties were also a fluke in the sense that their kind of run hasn’t happened before, hasn’t happened since, and likely won’t happen for a long, long time. That was a serendipitous combination of luck with injuries and personnel, mismanagement and idiocy in every other team in that division save Florida, which was ruthless and terrible to fans but efficient in slash and dash jobs, and some skill on their part, but people who use that particular run as a model or goal for their team will never be satisfied.

The Mets have only been competitive the last two seasons, they didn’t play truly meaningful games in August of 2005, and certainly not 2004 or 2003. Your revisionist history is misleading at best in their case.

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2008 10:50 AM MDT up 0 recs

I disagree

in some ways w/ what you’re saying. Is it ok to be consistently mediocre or around .500 but never play in a WS? I don’t see what that gets you, however I can agree that there is a certain amount of luck involved in making it to the WS, just as there is in making the playoffs IMO. So being consistent will allow for a better chance of making the WS for sure, but I don’t think as was pointed out the Mets or the Dodgers have been much more successful than the Rox in the last 20 years.

I am also wondering what makes last season any more fluky than this season. I know we have not built a history of winning, but since our refined plan of using young players built from within has come to fruition and players have had enough experience to count, we have only had 2-3 seasons to look at. So to me its hard to say if last year was the fluke or if this year is somewhat of a fluke. I hear everyone talking about career years last year, but what about underperformance this year, (Tulo, Taveras, Atkins) along w/ many injuries to fairly key players throughout the season. I have mentioned this before but we seem to have run into teams when they are playing some of their best baseball. I also think we could be in for better performances in the future from Jimenez, Morales, Stewart, and even Iannetta.

I just don’t think this organization is even close to being the Nationals. I think we have some strides to make to get to the A’s/Twins when it comes to a consistent winner using a modest payroll and young players, but I am not ready to give up and say the organization is not doing a good job w/ this. I would like to see what they do in the next couple of years w/ this team, and if we find ourselves in the cellar during that time then I will retract what I’ve said and be ready for change.

by smokinRox on Aug 18, 2008 11:10 AM MDT up 0 recs

well, I’d say that since this year, looks a lot like many of the Rockies past seasons, that this is the norm, rather than a fluke or an exception.

This organization, doesn’t seem to shoot for winning, and don’t get upset at losing. That’s not what this club seems to be about. It’s about not losing money. It’s the old Cubs model….the fans will turn out regardless of the quality of baseball played on the field.

Since I’ve been a Rockies fan (moved to Denver 6 years ago)…the Rockies have not finished above .500 except one year, last year, and then they were hovering at or below .500 for most of the year, except for that 2 month run. This year, is more like 05, and 04, etc, than it is to 07. Where will be in 09? Given the teams past, and the stated goals (remember we don’t put that kind of expectations on anyone) of the organization from the owners and Dan O’dowd….I doubt we will be wining anything next year either.

I’m sorry I come across as negative….but I think I’m a realist. And this organization sucks…from the top down. The kids on the field, are long shots, which can be lovable…in losing sorta way.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 11:54 AM MDT up 0 recs

"The kids on the field, are long shots,"

Where are your sources for this? I don’t get that from anybody I talk to in terms of most of our players. Sure it was mostly true with the Barmes/Atkins/Sullivan Gen R group, but baseball people love Stewart, they love Tulo, they love Fowler, they love Jimenez and many even love Morales still, most see through the home road crap on Holliday. Iannetta isn’t seen as an All-Star but there’s hardly anybody who doesn’t like him either. I’d like to know who you’re talking to that says they’re longshots this time around.

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2008 11:59 AM MDT up 0 recs

I’m not saying their isn’t some talent on the field…..I’m saying that this team wining…in the current baseball environment….is a long shot.

At the begining of the year…the Rockies were 65-1 shots That’s a long shot.

ok..ok…i give up. Sorry to point out that the Rockies are…..um….lacking. Hell…they are only 8 games out of 1st!

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 12:08 PM MDT up 0 recs

Winning...

Alright, this might be a semantics thing, but the 65-1 odds are for winning the World Series, not for having a winning record, or being competitive, which if Vegas had the guts to define would have been considerably better at the beginning of the season and you know it. Of course, even that would have been a losing bet this year. Second, those odds besides a crude talent analysis are also based on their expected book, which means that a team with a smaller national fanbase such as the Rockies will always be more conservatively rated relative to the big market, well established national brand name teams.

Finally, those are current odds not pre-season odds, and the fact that the Rockies are considered so strongly even now sort of weakens your argument.

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2008 12:27 PM MDT up 0 recs

I'm not saying well...sorry

I was trying to be nice to the players, in a It’s fun to root for an underdog/long-shot sort of way.

I’m sorry if I’m the only one that thinks they are underdogs or long shots.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 1:09 PM MDT up 0 recs

Also

I forget that no one likes to hear that their baby is ugly.

again…sorry to offend my stating that the team (the Kids on the Field) was “a long-shot”

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 1:15 PM MDT up 0 recs

Please stop

You just don’t make any kind of sense. You’re not capable of making a cogent argument without resorting to gross exaggeration. Seriously… this organization is bad because their current Vegas odds of winning a championship are low? You have got to be freaking kidding me.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 12:37 PM MDT up 0 recs

No I'm saying the Organization is bad

because it
A) has a terrible record 57-69
B) besides last year has always had a terrible record finishing with a losing record 11 of it’s 16 years, and 3 of the 5 winning seasons were over 10 years ago.
C) has actually stated by General Manager, Dan O’dowd, that the front office doesn’t actually put that kind of expectations of wining, on the team or manager (paraphrasing)
D) as stated by owner Charlie Monfort, is a minor league team for the Yankees (he said it)

Lastly…don’t tell me what to do.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 1:07 PM MDT up 0 recs

Fine

First – the Monfort quote, I believe, was along the lines of “If people want to say we’re a Yankee farm club, than so be it.” That’s a statement that breaks down to ‘We could give a rat’s ass about what Joe Casual Fan thinks about our organizational philosophy’ which is an entire zip code removed from what you took away from it.

Secondly… I’d love to see quotes that indicate that the Rockies don’t expect to win. Seriously. Quotes from the years 2004-2006, when the Rockies had no right to expect to win, do not count.

Thirdly… I’m sick of your attitude that everybody who doesn’t agree with you about the direction of the organization must be satisfied with losing. I still remember your crap about “You must all really like last place!” that you were spouting in April and May of this season when folks around here were rationally (at the time, anyway, since there were well over 120 games to go) holding out hope for the rest of the season. It’s me who’s sorry – sorry that not all of us wants to share your bleak outlook, and sorry that you can’t force it on us no matter how many strawmen you construct.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 1:46 PM MDT up 0 recs

Point D

No Monfort did NOT say that! What he said was: that if that’s what some reports thought and were going to print, fine, they were going to do that no matter what he said about that. It was a “Whatever, Dude!” sort of response.

by Since1993 on Aug 18, 2008 7:13 PM MDT up 0 recs

The A's?

The LAST thing I want to see the Rox become is a copy of the A’s. All they do is raise talent for the rest of the league. That’s a team that’s perenially “two years away.” They develop prospects into MLB talent, trade them away for more prospects who then mature into trade bait for more prospects. Sure, sometimes the team stays together long enough to taste the playoffs but you must know as an A’s fan that anybody you see out on the field will be gone before you know it. Makes it hard to root for them, I’ll bet. I never want to have a team like that.

by Since1993 on Aug 18, 2008 11:26 AM MDT up 0 recs

I couldn't agree more

I hate the A’s model…and they do it well (for the most part) Which is the sad part. What about the teams that don’t do it well…like the Indians. They seem to being always rebuilding for the future.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Aug 18, 2008 11:38 AM MDT up 0 recs

Unfortunately

thats what most organizations w/out huge markets are looking for. Sure it would be nice to be NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, but we aren’t, so we either win w/ a similar model or ask an owner to consistently lose a ton of money every year. Not may owners would want that or be willing to accept that. I know I will hear how we could sell out again w/ a good team, and while thats great, it doesn’t solve all money issues. A lot of revenues in these areas for these teams come from TV contracts and selling their apparel. I don’t see us making up ground in those 2 areas to the major market teams anytime soon. The other option would be to sign a bunch of high priced FA’s and hope to win and then dismantle the team shortly thereafter. In either case you won’t have many players sticking around for a long period of time. This is the way it is in the new era of FA, especially wout salary caps.

by smokinRox on Aug 18, 2008 11:52 AM MDT up 0 recs

Though the books remain closed...

I can guarantee you, nobody’s losing “tons” of money owning a Major League Franchise. Certainly not the slaughterhouse Bros. The lease is sweet, the stands are full. the TV is regional, and the payroll’s moderate.

If we were the A’s we’d have traded Holliday and Fuentes last year, Cook, Francis, Atkins, and Hawpe this year and Tulo and Jimenez next year. And I don’t think that’s a model to follow. I think O’Dowd’s been relatively smart in signing young players to extended contracts and I hope he makes a solid effort to resign Holliday. If Matt would rather play the market and maybe get $20 million plus then good luck to him and yep, it’s tradin’ time.

by Since1993 on Aug 18, 2008 12:24 PM MDT up 0 recs

At the same time...

MLB’s overlords want to keep it that way and would never allow a loose pocketed philanthropist like Frei wants to own a baseball team. I doubt that said philanthropist would have the Rockies on top of their wish list to begin with, but even if they did, I’d see Bud and company pulling out all the stops to block the purchase. It’s happened before and it will happen again unless they are on board with company policy and price controls. Collusion’s not necessary when you only allow the fully converted to join the club. Until I see the day that MLB’s ownership opens up, I’m not buying that a new ownership group is the cure-all.

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2008 12:34 PM MDT up 0 recs

A's

If we were the A’s we’d be one of the winningest teams of the decade with four division titles and five playoff appearances. What an awful thing that would be. Gosh, I’d hate to have gone to the postseason five out of the last eight seasons!

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 12:39 PM MDT up 0 recs

I should add

That comment was quite obviously made with a sarcastic tone (and came off harsher than I wanted – my apologies), but in all seriousness, I don’t see how anyone can look at the Oakland model and deem it unsuccessful or dislike it in any way. They’ve won all decade long. If the Rockies could do that I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if they ran out 25 different players every single season. But then I suppose it’s a matter of taste.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 12:43 PM MDT up 0 recs

I guess I would be arguing both sides

a little on this issue in discussing these teams, but I guess what I meant to say on all of this is the Rockies can be successful w/ the current model they are using, and even w/ most of the current roster and coaches they have. I do not want the organization to blindly keep everyone no matter what, but I think we forget this team was in the WS last year. Yes they had a tremendous run to get there, but they played very solid baseball in the 2nd half of the year. I would like to see what this team does next year before I run everyone out of town. I actually like the model they are using now, which is similar to the A’s model.

I am not asking for the Rockies to keep everyone and never make a smart deal, but I think some of our minor league players are already being written off w/ no chance to become quality big league pitchers. I think some of our younf hitters have a chance to make great strides too. If we can pick up a quality major league starter w/out giving up every decent player in our farm system, then I say they should do it.

I also understand this model will not allow us to keep every player we have and also will probably keep us from signing most of the high priced FA’s. I’m ok w/ that, as long as we can keep some of our guys, at least during some of their prime years. The A’s did the same w/ Chavez, and kept other players longer than some, its just making the trades at a shrewd time for the right deal if you can’t sign someone at the right [price.

by smokinRox on Aug 18, 2008 2:50 PM MDT up 0 recs

It's tricky...

To ~~rock a rhyme that’s right on time~~ strike that balance between being too loyal and trading everybody away. I actually think the A’s have done a great job of maximizing their return on most of the players that they have developed and traded away. If we end up trading Holliday or Atkins and those deals resemble the Mark Mulder trade more than the Tim Hudson trade, I think fans will get over being bummed that the jersey they bought is obsolete or that their kid’s favorite player isn’t a Rockie anymore.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 2:55 PM MDT up 0 recs

True, but at the same time

I think the Rockies are showing they are willing to hang on to guys. It’s easy to point out Atkins and Holliday but at the same time overlook Tulo, Corpas, Cook, Hawpe, and Francis. Holliday is obviously the big name, but I don’t think you can include Atkins in the same discussion with Holliday. I’d argue that Hawpe and Cook are more valuable than Garrett, and that Tulo and Francis will be more valuable in coming years. The Rockies aren’t showing they are unwilling to pay for the talent of Atkins because they’ve done so several times over the last two years.

Holliday is a problem several teams have. Texas and Atlanta could not keep Teixeira, and it looks like LAA won’t either. There are probably only two or three teams with the pockets to sign Holliday pre-free agency.

The point is the Rockies are willing to sign guys to longer deals so long as they’re willing to accept team friendly deals in exchange for financial security. I can’t complain with that model.

by David OhNo on Aug 18, 2008 6:38 PM MDT up 0 recs

Agreed

on all of these points. I have really become a Holliday fan, especially since he started playing some decent defense, and I think his bat will be much more difficult to replace then some of us believe. I just don’t see a bat on the team now or coming soon that we would be able to plug in and get similar results. I can see that at almost every other position, that we could at least find a similar replacement. Having said all of that I realize that we just can’t keep Holliday. We can not give him what he likely will want w/out crippling the organization for too many years. At the same time, I don’t blame Holliday for wanting it and I think some team will give it to him. It seems like he wants years over money, and thats fair for a player to want security later into their professional life, especially if they’ve earned it.

I could see Stewart being a guy to potentially replace the quality hitter that Holliday is, but I think he will likely be at 3rd for Atkins instead. I think Spilly or Smith would be a decent replacement and they would do very well as a starter, but production would still be lost w/out Holliday.

However, I do like what the Rockies are doing. I like watching our young players and I think we have some talented ones. I also agree that they have locked some of them up for very good deals, and we will get to watch them for awhile. Francis is the only one that I am worried we may regret.

by smokinRox on Aug 19, 2008 8:25 AM MDT up 0 recs

Direction of the Club

First of… I want to say two things.. I’m an optimist and I’m a Rockies fan. Those two go hand in hand. And I’m a glutton for punishment.

That being said, I love the direction the farm system is going. I’m willing to bet that with the pitching that we have in the minors we will be very competitive in 2009. Either winning the division or the wild-card.

by lizardlad01 on Aug 18, 2008 10:58 AM MDT 0 recs

I'm optimistic too,

I like our parts for 2009, but I really think the team needs to question the job of its coaching staff relative to the production other teams are getting from similar talent to what we have. I think O’Dowd’s built a farm pipeline that’s a bit above average, but it doesn’t profit anybody if that talent can’t produce to the level it’s capable of.

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2008 11:06 AM MDT up 0 recs

Bob McClure...

Now there’s a guy who could coach.

I agree that we have a bright future but also am concerned with a management that seems to have jobs for life.

by Since1993 on Aug 18, 2008 11:38 AM MDT up 0 recs

Mark Wiley

That Mark Wiley guy that was around the front office last year can apparently pass as a decent pitching coach as well. ;)

by MADness on Aug 18, 2008 7:44 PM MDT up 0 recs

I agree. Current Coaches are the problem.

I don’t think money is the key component in this argument:

Brains and money is king….Red Sox
Brains and no money is good….Twins, A’s, Marlins
Money and no brains is good too….Mets, Dodgers
No money and no brains is terrible…..Rockies, Nationals

RedSox are dominant b/c they have a smart front office, good coaching staff and money
Twins have found success with a smart front office and good coaching staff that knows how to make the most of their revolving door of young players
A’s have found success in the past with a smart front office, but of late, haven’t had the coaching staff to make the most of the young talent that the front office keeps bringin in.
Marlins have good coaching staff, who again knows how to use young talent
Mets and Dodgers have bad front offices who have opened the wallet, but until this year, have also had mediocre coaching staffs trying to get the most of the purchased talent.

The point here is that I think the Coaching staff is the key component. Hurdle and Co may be able to find success with veteran teams that don’t need much coaching. I just don’t think he knows how to teach young players how to be winners. Of course, the blame goes to the Front Office for failing to realize this.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Aug 18, 2008 12:43 PM MDT up 0 recs

Wait... what?

Hurdle and Co may be able to find success with veteran teams that don’t need much coaching. I just don’t think he knows how to teach young players how to be winners.

Excuse me? Wasn’t last year’s National League pennant-winner comprised almost entirely of young players?

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 1:42 PM MDT up 0 recs

I'm sorry, but I don't think last year's run had anything to do w/Hurdle & Co

I think Dinger could have been coaching, and the Rox would have won during their winning stretch. Heck, one could argue Helton had more to do with it than Hurdle.

You watch this club and they just don’t do the things necessary to sustain their offensive slumps. I’m talking about the “little things”.

I look at Hurdle and I see Joe Torre. He can sit on the bench and cheer his players, expecting them to slug their way to victory. Give him a lot of good-hitting, fundamentally-sound players, and he can make that team win. I’m just not convinced he knows how to make them that way if they aren’t.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have watched Whitey Herzog and Tony LaRussa over the course of some very successful Cardinal decades, do much with little. And what did you have in between: a young Joe Torre, who just didn’t know how to get anything out of young, inexperienced (and granted, often untalented) players.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Aug 18, 2008 1:59 PM MDT up 0 recs

Whatever

Yeah, Clint Hurdle and Joe Torre are pretty much the same guy once you strip away the four World Series rings and 13 playoff appearances.

And your argument that it could have been anybody managing the team last year… isn’t really an argument at all.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 2:03 PM MDT up 0 recs

I don't understand

In your mind, the September and October run last year was Hurdle’s doing, but all the other years of sub-mediocrity which were under his guidance (including most of last year and this year) fall upon the players?

And with regards to Torre, notice LA is another large market with deep pockets. He expects to be handed big pieces (e.g. Manny) with which to play. He manages a game by the book, and expects to find success, assuming he’s got good pieces with which to play. I’m just saying, I see a lot of that in Hurdle. Unfortunately, that flies better in the AL, than in a small market NL team.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Aug 18, 2008 2:44 PM MDT up 0 recs

Don't get me wrong

As my comment dismissing the Torre/Hurdle comparison may show, I’m not about to give Hurdle credit for being one of the great managing minds of our time. But if you’re going to discredit him for being in charge of some losing teams, you have to give him credit for being in charge of a young team that won the pennant.

I’ve never been the type to say the manager has a ton of influence on the way his players play. I’m just saying that, if I were (and you seem to be), I wouldn’t say Clint Hurdle doesn’t know how to mold a young team into a winning team, because from that perspective, that’s exactly what happened. Your viewpoint just doesn’t seem consistent (and in fairness, I’m not sure mine has come across that way either in this exchange).

Your second comparison of Torre to Hurdle makes a bit more sense, but I still don’t think you’re giving Torre enough credit. The guy’s going to Cooperstown as a manager. Clint Hurdle’s only getting in there if he buys a ticket.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Aug 18, 2008 2:52 PM MDT up 0 recs