Wednesday Rockpile: Clint Hurdle Arlington bound as Rangers hire him as hitting coach
Some people always seem to wind up with the best gigs. According to reports out of Texas, former Rockies manager Clint Hurdle has been picked up by the Texas Rangers as their hitting coach. Similar to when he held the post with the Rockies at Coors Field, half his job is seemingly already taken care of.
A competitive World Series between the two teams at least commonly perceived to be the best in baseball this year is probably good for the health of the sport, and the storyline of longtime Yankees nemesis Pedro Martinez returning to the Bronx tonight for Game 6 certainly builds the drama, adds ratings, and helps make the next TV contract fat and juicy. None of this really helps the Rockies specifically, as any general MLB windfall will be equally distributed, and the only two teams getting a real brand benefit are the two left playing. This year, though, it seems to me to be a much larger benefit to the teams involved than it has been in the recent past. I'd say at least since 2004, and since that ended in a Red Sox sweep without much drama to the Series itself, probably since 2001. Is this just the return of the Yankees and their legions of fans that's at the root, or is there actually something to the "two best teams" idea that elevates the series and the benefits that can be derived from it?
If it's the latter (and I'm not entirely certain if it is, or if it's just the Yankees) it can be seen how the Rockies could benefit from a better national brand presence should they make it back to the World Series in the next couple of years. They could win a lot more fans by establishing themselves nationally as a quality, elite team.
Here are some of the anecdotal examples of the Rockies being branded nationally as a cut below the league's elite, and perhaps even as a cut below the second tier in the NL:
- No fear for the Rockies rotation - Down the stretch in 2009, a frequent refrain from fans of the Cardinals, Phillies and Dodgers was something along the lines of: "I'd rather we face the Rockies than the Giants...". Watch as 2010 predictions start to roll out that when mentioning Rockies pitching, how many qualifiers or moderating terms pundits use. "Solid" is a buzzword that you'll probably get a lot. However, the fact is that Rockies pitching was at or near the top of the NL in value for most of 2009 and while there might be some regression in store for 2010, it shouldn't be enough to knock the team's pitching value from the top two or three teams in the league.
- The Kruk Theory - Fans that followed the Braves, Cubs and even the Marlins, as well as numerous pundits in the Central and Eastern portions of the country did not seem to perceive a Rockies wild card lead as something natural or sustainable, and there was this sort of inevitable drop that many felt was coming. This had as much to do with a perceived weakness with the Rockies when having to face the Giants and Dodgers frequently down the stretch, as it did with the strength of teams in other divisions. Outside of San Francisco and certain sabermetric circles, there really wasn't a perception that the Rockies were going to continue winning. If we're more than casual fans, we will have hierarchical biases in mind when it comes to projecting. We picture any random 20 game stretch turning out differently for the Yankees than the Pirates, for instance. What this seems to say to me about the Rockies, is that for much of the country, there was still at best a 10-10 perception of that random 20 game stretch at the end of the year.
I think a couple of key questions for the Rockies in 2010 are how they get their national image more in line with their actual level of play, and secondly how they raise that level of play to the point where they can be a legitimate A list team. I've said this before, but I think winning the division is very important for the team in 2010, and that just getting to the playoffs via the wild card may no longer be enough for the duration of the team's current success cycle. We're at a point where winning playoff series, division titles, pennants and world championships become the real goals rather than just being competitive.
140 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't see the Rockies being an A list team
Until they win multiple World series with multiple shining star players. Why would it be otherwise? Are the Marlins a tier 1 team because of their WS wins in the very recent past?
Until Denver quadruples in size or becomes the new US capital in the even of WW3, I really, really don’t see it happening. And I’m not quite sure why we’d want it to.
Increased fan base
for more revenue, more appealing for free agents, particularly pitchers who we are at a supreme disadvantage with when it comes to luring them here.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
More appealing
in the same sentance as supreme disadvantage…
To be an A list team, TV revenue is what its all about, and that isn’t likely to happen in the region. Personally, I’d like to see the national games have some Rockies games included. IMO, that will be an indicator that the team has a spreading fan base.
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.
by rockieprogress on Nov 4, 2009 10:41 AM MST up reply actions
One thing that hurts the Rockies is the time zone they are in
6:30 MT or 8:30 ET is not a good time for ESPN to start a weeknight baseball game. Notice how the very few times the Rockies are on ESPN (against the Giants last year) they are on the road.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 12:42 PM MST up reply actions
How is
8:30 EST start time significantly different from the 7:57 EST start time for a game where the network sets the starting time (hint: tonights game)?
The World Series is a different animal than a regular season game.
ESPN likes to get to SportsCenter at 11ET during the regular season. They can put baseball tonight on either side of a game that start in the east or central time zones (7-8 or 10-11) but what do you do with that other 30 minutes for a game that starts at 8:30? (For the west coast games they can completely change their schedule (even to someting that’s not baseball related) in the early part of the night. You can’t do that for 30 minutes from 8 to 8:30 without losing an audiance.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 3:04 PM MST up reply actions
It would be pretty
easy to put a 30 min or hour and a half edition of BBT and show live look ins of current games. My point was that the network chooses 8:00pm EST to show a game as their best chance of getting a baseball audience. 30minutes is not a big difference from that. There were plenty of games where there was only one baseball game on, that started at something like 8:05 EST. If a national network is going to show a game, they’re not going to lose their audience in 25 minutes.
I don't think they want to do a 90 minute edition of BBT and move SportsCenter back
I would love that, but I don’t think they want to do that often.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 4:40 PM MST up reply actions
It's an easy fix, really
Turn off Empty Sports Poseurs Network and flip over to MLB Network. And put lots of Rox games on MLB.
Problem solved, no one has to krukin listen to those asshats anymore.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
Some people don't get MLB Network.
I personally have also been mostly indifferent to ESPN, in the sense that I happily watch in order to get highlights, particularly living outside of Colorado, and usually just shrug at all the vociferous complaints against them.
The Rockies did play a fair amount on MLB network this year
It may get more national attention after a few years. Boy I hope so. Maybe ESPN will have to start improving it’s coverage.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 5:05 PM MST up reply actions
Actually, as MLB continues to roll out to more cable systems
…ESPN will have to improve its coverage, or they will otherwise seriously start losing viewers. It’s one thing to root for two major markets being in a WS for ratings, but during a regular season when you can follow your team on MLB Network, why would you settle for being forcefed 13 Yanks/Red Sox contests a year?
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
The Rockies appeared on MLB Network at least eight games in 2009.
Since ESPN has focused on the 7PM ET start time most of the season, the best chance the Rockies were going to appear on ESPN was if they were travelling east, like in Philly or Atlanta. ESPN hasn’t been in Denver for a Sunday night MLB game in at least five years, maybe more. (ESPN has scheduled quite a few Denver Nuggets home games at the Pepsi Center starting at 8:30pm MT or later.) At least MLB Network has done their part promoting the Rockies, which can’t be said for ESPN or FOX.
I agree
I think its highly unlikely that the Rockies will ever be perceived as an A list team, at least in the foreseeable future. Other “old school” teams just don’t (and won’t) take us seriously. Many reasons, but mostly lack of history and altitude/location.
But I do think the team currently has two ways to get rolling with national cred: (1) Tulo, and (2) CarGon. The fact is that the Rockies have never had truly respected stars. The Blake Street Boys were always considered a product of altitude, and even though Walker was widely respected he was not a megastar. Likewise Todd, who is so unassuming and quiet that people easily overlook him, and also most non-Rockies fans see him as a Coors (and/or roids) construct. Its unfair, but true. But…Tulo has the attitude and talent to be a widely recognized star, and just from my own experience here in LA and with friends aroudn the country, there is a ton of mojo around CarGon after these playoffs…people really see something in him. If those two can blow up over the next few years, it still wont get us into Dodgers/Cardinals esteem level but we can at least separate beyond Marlins/Astros/Pirates.
Good point, but
Ubaldo should be added to the list of stars that will be marketable on a national stage.
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.
by rockieprogress on Nov 4, 2009 10:43 AM MST up reply actions
I love Uball
don’t get me wrong. But I just don’t know if he’s ever going to take that final step to mega-ace potential. that last step usually comes with pinpoint control, and I don’t know if he’ll ever have it. Which isn’t to say he won’t be (and isn’t already) an all-star level stud.
At this point, I think I'll be happy with that kind of recognition
Timmeh > Ubaldo, but I think Ubaldo can be similarly effective (obv not AS effective) in our defensive system. I mean, he punched out over 8 guys per 9, that’s pretty effective.
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 1:16 PM MST up reply actions
The northeast fans I have talked to were very impressed with his performance in game 4
They were like “Whoa, whose this guy?”
They still can’t pronounce his name though
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:19 PM MST up reply actions
Jim in ess?
rather than Ji MEN ez?
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 1:25 PM MST up reply actions
That and they have like ten different ways of pronouncing Ubaldo.
It’s really quite amusing.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:28 PM MST up reply actions
I think this all I'm looking at,
and I should probably clarify that by “A list” I’m not talking about a legacy team, but I mean A list on a talent/skill level, where there is a measure of respect (i.e. an expectation of a winning record) afforded to the talent that we haven’t been seeing in the past couple of years. The Rays and Diamondbacks heading into 2009 are two examples of teams that I would consider to have been in that talent perception group, where they were expected to win this past season and afforded a lot of media respect, even though neither team has much, if any, more history than the Rockies.
I can't believe people think a team like the Rockies could never become an A list team because of their location
Were the Reds an A list team in the 70’s?
Were the A’s and Royals A list teams in the 80’s?
Were the Twins and Blue Jays A list teams in the early 90’s?
How about the Braves for about 14 strait seasons?
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 12:49 PM MST up reply actions
That's a good point, but I think we have to agree that
location is a bigger factor in baseball than it is in, say, football (where I think we can probably all agree that the Broncos are an A-list team). Baseball is, by nature, far more regional and always will be.
That being said, I think the biggest issue is not location but history. Hopefully that changes over time.
I disagree
Indianapolis had no football history until a few years ago and they are among the most respected teams in football. New England also had no NFL history until 2001 and look at where they are now.
How about the Phils until 2007? Only one World Series in over 100 years and more loses than any team in history. Just a few years of winning can totally change a franchise and I think we may be on the cusp of that.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:13 PM MST up reply actions
I don't think we can really compare to football.
That was my point. It’s a lot easier for an NFL team to overcome a lack of history.
The Phillies may not have been winning, but I would say that having been around that long, people were far more willing and eager to elevate them.
I’m not saying we’re not on the cusp of being respected at a level we haven’t been. I just think it will take a lot more to get to the level of some of those teams that have been around forever, recent success (or lack thereof for some of those teams) regardless.
People around here elevated the D'backs to the level of the elites after just one World Series in 2001.
No history, no big city, and no dynasty, just star players winning one World Series. My point is that winning it all can make people change their perceptions much quicker than you would think, and the Rockies have the pieces in place to become quite a franchise in the next few years.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:35 PM MST up reply actions
I would contend that while the D'backs may have gotten respect
on a limited basis because of their win, they are definitely not in the A-list category.
No not now
I mean in 2002
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:14 PM MST up reply actions
yeah
I think the argument is getting muddled here. To me there is a difference between being respected as a great team/organization for a period of success vs. being an A-list franchise that people generally respect regardless of the team’s record any given year. St. Louis is the perfect example of this.
I'm talking about A list in terms of success
Not being generally respected.
Although I think the Cards have has quite a bit of success this decade beyond people just respecting them
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:34 PM MST up reply actions
yes, we definitely seem to be in need of some defining of the term,
I think for me, I used it in the connotation and way I most frequently associate it with, that is, Hollywood actors, where the current A list is vastly different and more fleeting from what we would consider screen legends.
that's funny
I actually had the same analogy in a previous post but switched to college hoops.
my A-list opionion
I think if the Rockies had received some measure of respect by some postseason awards in 07 or this year , they may have lent itself to A list status. I think of it as reputation which may be current or long lasting
Dear Rockies - Thank you for a wonderful rollercoaster of a season! NL Wild Card Champs. Best turnaround in MLB history for a team to win the Wild Card. Can't wait to do it again next year!
Troy Tulowitzki - MLB's BEST shortstop..nuff said
Yorvit Torrealba - Re-sign!! he's en Fuego!!
Brad Hawpe- I hope I get to see you in a Rockies uniform again!
Dexter Fowler - prowling CF, WC in his talons, leaping Utleys in a single bound!
I think the issue is not location, or history, but revenue
Revenue is what separates the Rockies from the Yankees/Mets/RedSox/Cubs/Dodgers/Angels. However, having said that, revenue is obviously correlated with location. The challenge for teams like Colorado is gaining recognition despite huge revenue gaps – how do you get on the A list on the cheap?
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." - A. Bartlett Giamatti
Win World Series
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:55 PM MST up reply actions
Hasn't worked for the Marlins.
And they’ve won more than once. And I still don’t think the D’backs can be considered “A-list.”
I think the problem is there are differing interpretations of “A-list.”
I don't know if you have a stricter definition or if it's because I see the A list teams as constantly changing.
Right now I think the A list teams are the Phils, Yankees, and Red Sox. with the Angels and Cardinals in the discussion.
In early 2002 I would have said the Yankees, Braves and D’backs were the A list teams.
In the early 1990’s I think the A list teams were some weird combination of the Twins, Blue Jays, Braves and maybe even the A’s and Pirates
In the mid 70’s I think the A list teams were the Reds, A’s, and Pirates.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:30 PM MST up reply actions
yeah
you are clearly on a different page than Holly and me. I agree with your point under your definition.
The one about the teams right now or that they are constantly changing
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:36 PM MST up reply actions
Under your definition
the A-list constantly changes based on who is actually the best team on the field. I agree with you under that definition.
My “A list” (and, I think, Holly and Rox Girl) is more about perception based on things beyond just year-to-year results. For instance, in LA, Dodger fans are almost ALWAYS going to see the Giants as a more legit, credible threat than the Rockies, and be taken more seriously. It will take decades to change this perception.
So do you think
Texas and Seattle take the A’s and their 9 championships more serious than the Angels and their one pennant? How seriously do you think fans take the Pirates and their rich history.
What are your A list teams right now?
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:56 PM MST up reply actions
I'm not really
talking about what the teams/players think of each other, but rather the fans/media.
So am I
and I think there is no way the A’s get more love than the Angels even though the history is not even close
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 4:44 PM MST up reply actions
Actually, as I just mentioned above, and as usual, I'm more of a fence sitter
on this, in that I differentiate an A-list from a legacy team list. I think teams can get media cache at any given time and be elevated to what would be a current A-list. Their length of stay on this list as well as their ability to come up with something in the “what have you done for me lately?” category will help build their legacy and lasting brand image which I think is the main thing you are talking about. However, I’m saying that in the national media’s eye, and by extension the public at large, the Rockies didn’t really seem to be on this current hot list as deep into the 2009 season as late September.
I think the fact that the Rockies didn’t choke the wild card lead may have actually elevated them onto this list, but I’m not sure yet. I think the proof will be in the media predictions that come out. The big test is San Francisco, if we see a lot of media pundits putting the Giants ahead of the Rockies in their NL West standings, then I think our WC win was mostly for nil as far as national branding is concerned. Again, I think winning the division is now a huge hurdle for the franchise.
As far as the legacy status, I actually think the timing of the Rockies success cycle is pretty fantastic if they can follow up on it and actually win a WS or three (don’t laugh just yet, it’s at least possible) in this next decade. Because the team seems to be just entering a run, the Rockies have at least a real decent shot of being a “team of the decade” for the media in the next ten years. I’m not counting my chickens here, I know how the A’s were supposed to be that team for the 2000’s and we can look at what happened in retrospect as a cautionary tale, but at least that possibility seems to be looming out there.
Great post
As far as that team of the next decade it’s not impossible. Who would have thought the Red Sox would have had a chance of being the team of decade after not winning a World Series since 1918.
For me the key is this. The 1990’s proved that Denver can fill a baseball stadium as well as some of the big marjet teams if they have motavation. If the Rockies continue to play well, and there is no reason that they should not, their attendance numbers should start to go up. This will move the Rockies away from team like Tampa, the Marlins and Oakland who can bring up young talent but can’t keep it. The Rockies IMO don’t have to become a team that has to sign every free agent like the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox. If they can get to a point to where they can just hold on to guys they develop, they could become a very special underdog team in America’s eyes.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 5:00 PM MST up reply actions
"very special underdog team in America’s eyes"
for sure, I think we’re on the cusp of that now. The purists will always hate us but younger generations can get on board…
Well what you can't do is win the World Series and then nuke the team.
When you do that twice you get a slightly different perspective
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:17 PM MST up reply actions
I'm not sure what those teams have to do with the "A-list" point
Even if I buy the premise (which I’m not sure I do) that all those teams were considered A-list in their time, most of those teams are still in the east. Also predominantly in old-school cities that have been playing ball forever, and are, of course, near other teams. Colorado is in the middle of nowhere sports-wise. We have no natural geographic rivalries. Many people outside of the area don’t even know that a Mountain Time Zone exists. Sure, Denver is not an obsucre place overall but its also not remotely connected to anything else about MLB (and most purists think its a bad place for baseball). Toronto is the only other city on your list that is a true outlier, and I doubt anyone ever put them on the A list.
I think your point is more that you don’t have to be a traditional power franchise or be in a major market to become a great organization, and that is certainly true.
Who would you have listed as the A list teams during those times?
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:15 PM MST up reply actions
the same ones I'd list now
basically, though I’m not old enough to really know the 70s and 80s teams. To me, its kinda like listing the elite college basketball programs or something. Kentucky has been down for a few years but they are always A list, kinda like that. To me, St. Louis, NYY, Bos, Cubs, Dodgers, Braves, Giants. THose type of things. The kind of teams that Kruk thinks will be awesome just because of the name on the front of the jersey. I think that is what Rox Girl is talking about, inherent respect regardless of the specific players on any given team.
I disagree
Teams are always changing.
The Red Sox had no fans in the late 50’s and early 60’s. The Yankees were no where near an A list team for most of the 80’s and the early 90’s. The Braves were losers in the 70, and the Cubs had mediocre attendance at for several decades in their history.
Check out attendace figures for any team here. (I realize attendance is only one measure of an A list team and that the Rox were not an A list team in the 90’s)
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/attendance.htm
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:45 PM MST up reply actions
In the 70s, the Royals were an absolute A list team
If you define A-list team as a franchise experiencing sustained success (not necessarily having to require WS rings, per se), sustained popularity, and sustained media coverage….
Really, if you want to look at the decade as a whole, it comes down to the Royals, Reds, A’s, Dodgers, Orioles and Yankees (and the Yanks at the bottom of that list, as the franchise was pretty much crap from the mid 60s through ’76.)
In the 80s, you have to give it up for the Cardnals, Red Sox, Dodgers, Twins, Tigers, and to a lesser extent, the A’s and the Orioles.
This isn’t sabr or stat-based…this is going from my own recollection, is all.
RhodeIslandRoxfan is correct, for many years, the Red Sox were a complete afterthought. Heck, much of the Yanks/Red Sox rivalry doesn’t really go back before the mid 70s, even. And as for the Yankees, from 1973 to 1995, they had about a handful of good years, and before their mid 90s resurgence, averaged as little as 29,000 attendees a game.
Now, if you want to look at A-list franchises, which I define differently from teams, which can have mid-term valleys, I think you really have to consider only those few franchises who have had bouts of real success, real long-term fanbases, and constant coverage, at multiple and varying occasions during their overall histories (or some varying combination of the three)
Using that criteria, the list is really small, limited to the Yankees, Cardinals, Orioles, Giants, Dodgers, Reds. I’d actually put the Red Sox a slight notch below all the others.
Going back to the long-time franchises, the A’s, White Sox, Indians, Braves, Cubs, and Pirates went through many many long stretches where their franchises were considered jokes, hence the term “second division”.
All imho.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
I agree with you
My biggest point about this whole debate is that A list franchises are always changing. Are the Rockies an A list franchise now? Absolutely not. But it’s amazing of what just a couple of years of winning will do. The Phils are the best example of this. The baseball landscape changes faster than you think.
If you are defining A list with history involved then yes the Rox can’t get there for many many years. But that definition is flawed in my opionion because then you have to include the A’s and Pirates on that list and nobody is in envy of them right now. I’m not saying not to remember and respect those great teams but it in no way would make me any happier to be a fan of those teams right now.
It’s important to remember that the baseball landscape is constantly shifting. No franchise, not even the Yankees has gone through its entire history without long and/or multiple dry spells. All things considered, the Rockies could have some very fruitful days ahead.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 5:22 PM MST up reply actions
See here's the one point where I guess we disagree
But that definition is flawed in my opionion because then you have to include the A’s and Pirates on that list and nobody is in envy of them right now.
If you’re really looking at A-list over history, then neither of those two teams get on the list, because both have many decades of failure and futility, and sometimes embarrassment associated with them. Having a long history does not make it a storied history. The A’s were run out of town twice, and stripped bare, Marlins-style on more than a couple occasions in history. The Pirates largely dwelled in mediocrity, and frankly, had only a couple notably good periods in their history.
But in many ways, I think we’re on the same page. And yeah, none of the ’76-and-more-recent franchises can even be in the legacy conversation, though I do think some of the 60s-born franchises, such as the Twins and Angels can, as they are (or are approaching) 40-50 years old, meaning many generations of players, and several generations of fans. Not suggesting they actually deserve A-list ranking, but I can see where they merit asking the question whether they deserve it. And the Twins would be pretty close.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
None of the teams I mentioned border the Atlantic Ocean
When I think East coast teams I think Interstate 95. In particular Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore, and Wahington DC.
Maybe that’s where some of our disagreement is coming from
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:26 PM MST up reply actions
Anything in the Midwest
qualifies as East to me.
Oh No No No No
People in the Midwest would be insulted. The I 95 crowd is cut from a different mold. (Louder, more aggressive, more obnoxious) Go to each reigion and you will find that they are drastically different.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 2:49 PM MST up reply actions
No,
I don’t dispute that. But for prestige/ESPN purposes, midwest teams get treated similarly to the true east teams. But to be fair, this is long-distance perception to me, I live in LA and have only briefly lived east (3 years in Durham, NC, where nobody cared about anything except college basketball and Nascar). No doubt the NY/Chicago/Bostons don’t consider Detroit/Minny/KC to be equals.
And ESPN doesn't give the Detroit/Minny/KC types...
….nearly the same level of coverage as the “true east” teams. Chicago is different in that regard.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
For me the cities that get extra attention are
the I 95 cities I mentioned above, Chicago, Dallas, and LA. It might just be me but thats the perception I get
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 5:03 PM MST up reply actions
Pitching regression
I think the most common theory for why Rockies pitchers regress in 2010 is injuries. However, I think there is reason to hope that even with injuries the Rockies pitching can meet or exceed 2009 performance. First, as these guys mature, some of the “blowup” innings can be eliminated by better pitch selection (e.g., Ubaldo), which is learned. Two, again, I think the younger guys will have a lot of confidence going into 2010 based on their strong finishes (e.g, Hamels and JDLR). Do you think JDLR will start 0-6 again? Three, the starting pitching depth is quite good, assuming Francis is serviceable, that the Marquis money is spent well, and that the other organization arms are able to make a contribution. Lastly, the bullpen, assuming the main contributors are under contract, is likely to be improved over the bullpen starting 2009 (we need Stree, Betancourt, and Bucholz back). This takes quite a bit of stress off the starters and keeps team morale up.
I know there are several key assumptions in there, but I feel it is just as reasonable to take a glass-half-full perspective as a glass-half-empty.
As for Colorado being an elite A team, I tend to agree with Biondino, I’m not sure that it is achievable under any circumstances. I think the right model is St. Louis. If five years from now Colorado were as highly regarded as the Cardinals are in baseball circles, I would say job well done. They have a well respected FO, good coaching, great fans, are regular postseason participants, and make a decent run at the WS every now and then.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." - A. Bartlett Giamatti
You set your sights pretty high
if you think we can be as regarded as the Cardinals in five years. They are the NL team regarding history, success, etc…
by Muzia on Nov 4, 2009 10:44 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
We can't match their history
and we have a long way to go in the fandom category, in my opinion. Elsewise, why not?
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." - A. Bartlett Giamatti
Broncos have history
at least going back to the late 70’s they have always been competitive. Rockies only have 3 years
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
This was a reference to the fandom category.
I don’t think the Rockies can ever be at the Cardinals level in Denver simply because of the Broncos.
gotcha
yeah I would agree with you there then. Denver sports fans can defintley be very passionate but they are also very bandwagony when teams start to stink except for the Broncos because of their history. Take the Nuggs for example before Carmelo no one went to the games and they pratically had to give away the tickets. Once the Nuggs started winning the atmosphere completley changed. So I would agree if the Rocks keep winning it won’t take 30 years to acheive the level of fandom that the cards have but if they have losing seasons it will turn around quick.
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
I would think
that if teams are as incompetent as the Rockies and Nuggets were for such a long time, fans have a pretty good reason not to show up. Calling a city which holds two attendance records in different sports “very bandwagony” is peculiar.
I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.
yep.
It would take 20-30 years of success.
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.
by rockieprogress on Nov 4, 2009 10:46 AM MST up reply actions
I don't know if there is a team to compare
because of the lack of history, possibly maybe Cleaveland untill their recent troubles
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
yes currently
I am saying what the team could look like in 5 years with regard to national perception
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
Divisional perspective is the first step to that
I think we gained quite a bit of respect from our friends in San Francisco at the very least this year. Winning that divisional title is huge, as noted above.
agreed
Thats why I think Cleaveland might be a good example they were just kind of a mediocre team in the 80’s but then they started winning the AL Central Dvision every year during the mid 90’s and their perception changed to a lvl below the Yanks anr Red Sox, but above most everyone else in the AL
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
+1
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
Remember that the Cleveland Indians have been around since 1901
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:17 AM MST up reply actions
true
but they have been horible for most of that time 1 WS in the 50’s tell the 90’s if i remember right. they don’t have the lovable loser following that the cubs do.
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
ecch yeah, that's a lot of sub-.500 teams in there
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:22 AM MST up reply actions
but there just might not be a team to compare too
Just trying to come up with something close. Maybe the Jays in the early 90’s if we look at any team with lack of history at all.
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
Again, I think the Mariners are a good comparison
Similar owner issues early on in the franchise’s history, boom/bust experiments with free agents, trading away high caliber players due to payroll constraints. They are held with a higher respect in the national/international media (Thanks to the awesomeness that is Ichiro) despite a very lackluster record the last few years.
People expect things out of Seattle, they expect them to compete for the AL West crown on a regular basis.
I would be very happy if the Rockies turn into the NL Seattle
I wouldn't
They have never even been to a World Series
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:01 PM MST up reply actions
well Tampa is fighting for respect as well
We need to lead this division for a season – maybe not wire to wire, but until we really show we can swing and not just bring up the back end, nobody’s gonna take us seriously.
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:28 AM MST up reply actions
yeah Maybe those two
I hope we are farther along in 5 years though to be where the Indians were as opposed to the M’s or Tampa. Hard to judge Tampa though because that was one season.
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
Tampa would probably win any other division in baseball
too bad they are stuck. They are a very, very good team.
yeah probably right
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
Yeah I don't know about that
their pitching regressed pretty mightily, and a lot of bats didn’t show up. I don’t see them surpassing the Phillies, Dodgers, Us, or the Angels.
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:36 AM MST up reply actions
I don't know either
They only won 84 games this year and they went 16-20 against Boston and New York. It’s not like playing those teams hurt them that badly. I think they only division they would have won would have been the AL central and I think about a dozen teams could have won that
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:05 PM MST up reply actions
Thinking about it a little more
how about the Braves? Their FO has regressed, but they obviously get some respect (from Kruk (: ).
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." - A. Bartlett Giamatti
they still have the warmth from the 90s keeping them from falling to "our level"
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:51 AM MST up reply actions
It's very similar to the Indians
mediocre team starts winning the division every year. only they were the only NL team for the 90’s really. Although I think our fandom is way better then the braves ever was they only had the Chop and coudn’t even sell out playoff games after awhile
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
I guess that makes RG's point
until we win division titles, we get bubkis
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." - A. Bartlett Giamatti
Hard to make a compelling argument for greatness
without a division crown, really.
Exactly,
Nothing short of actual hardware or top of the chart type of results from the team from here on out add to the legacy/history branding that’s being built. While we could argue whether it’s even possible for the Rockies to become a historically elite franchise, I think we all know for certain that it won’t happen with just another WC appearance or two. You can’t shed that good but not great label without ever being the best in your own division. At this point, division titles seem to be the bare minimum for building a national brand.
Atlanta is a terrible sports town
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:06 PM MST up reply actions
RE RockiesDave 1:20 pm
How are the Phils percieved after just three years of winning? If we win for the next couple of years, and that is a big if, we will get national recognition. The Phils won one World Series in over 100 years and lost more games than any team in the history of baseball. Look what three years of winning with at least one World Series did for them
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:00 PM MST up reply actions
true
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
just so you know
we can click the “up” link under your posts and see who you are replying too, if that’ll save you the effort
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 1:17 PM MST up reply actions
Ah
That’s a useful tool
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:21 PM MST up reply actions
I still find little tricks that I didn't know before
for example, did you know you can preview posts before posting them?!
(I’m kidding)
seriously, sbnation’s platform is just full of l’il tricks
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 1:25 PM MST up reply actions
yeah
So I think the Indians, Phils, and Braves are somewhat of a good comparison with where the Rox perception could be in 5 years if they keep winning. I don’t think they can reach the lvl of the Yanks, Sox’s, Cubs, or Dogers without longer history.
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
I dunno about you guys
but personally I hope we don’t ever reach the status of the Cubs. Is there a more overrated franchise in sports?
I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.
+1
but they have more media attention then the Rox ever will
Dex Knows
Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C.S. Lewis
I'm fine with that.
Sports fans have an odd obsession with media attention. It’s something I don’t understand.
I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.
by A.J. Haefele on Nov 4, 2009 1:33 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
there tends to be money involved
money = payroll eventually
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 3:56 PM MST up reply actions
The Cubs have all the media attention they do for a very different reason most have it
People love a train wreck
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Nov 4, 2009 1:39 PM MST up reply actions
Jason Hammel
Cole Hamels does not pitch for us.
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:15 AM MST up reply actions
because he's a quitter
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:34 AM MST up reply actions
this is why you give generic pressers
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 11:36 AM MST up reply actions
As do I
Brilliant
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Nov 4, 2009 12:06 PM MST up reply actions
National Coverage
The Denver Post piece about Chris Rice, former asst GM, mentioned that ESPN had a long standing resentment of the Rockies for not allowing them into the draft room during the 1993 expansion draft.
With all the wacky, weird people at ESPN, and with their huge influence on baseball coverage, it’s no inconceivable that longstanding prejudices against the Rockies have been… longstanding.
The Broncos, and any NFL team, were a given for national coverage, but people had no problem getting wrapped up in the Denver Nuggets run with Mutombo. Also, there was expansive coverage of the powerful Avs teams from 96-2000. It shouldn’t be hard to get more favorable coverage for the Rockies – the NYT and other national papers portrayed the Rockies favorably in 07 – but it might be hard to turn ESPN into giving more/better coverage.
Did they get in the Marlins draft room in 1993?
If so, I can see why they would be miffed at the Rockies not doing the same.
However, I’d be hard pressed to conclude that a 15+-year-old grudge has all that much impact on current coverage. I’d say the subsequent losing years and the desire to cover larger markets (and teams with much more history) has far more to do with it.
Marlins allowed them in...
which I guess was the genesis of the Rockies being ignored on ESPN’s baseball coverage. Read the Deadspin article(s) about ESPN. Behavior is a little different there than the regular world.
Interesting point
but with all the constant turnover at ESPN, I agree that its hard to think a specific grudge could still be an issue, but who knows.
It's unlikely that that particular grudge is still an issue...
….but the overall corporate culture at ESPN is so gratuitously corrupt and self-referential that it’s a bit harder to remove one’s ego from one’s collective ass enough to realize not everyone cares about the SEC and the AL East.
More a case of institutionalized ignorance.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
I just figure that with the weirdos they have over there
that the surface feeling that arose because of the grudge – indifference towards the Rockies – may have lingered at the network without people actually realizing the cause of it. Turnover doesn’t necessarily end the particular attitudes of certain companies.
That’s all speculation, but the Rockies have also repeatedly emphasized the religious roots within the organization, which is sure to turn off a fair amount of media people. Think of the coverage the Jazz got because of the late Larry Miller (a conservative Mormon): all negative.
Huh
I never thought of the Jazz as getting negative coverage. My perception might be skewed as I went to school in Utah and therefore got a bit more local Jazz coverage during that time, but I’ve always gotten the sense that the national media has a bit of a love affair with the Jazz, especially because of Jerry Sloan.
I, too, never really noticed any negative coverage of the Jazz
Really, during the Malone/Stockton era, the only “bad” coverage I ever saw basically related to their inability to ever unseat the Lakers and win an NBA championship. Nothing bad about the franchise itself.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
You just described the entire internet.
I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.
Really?
You haven’t seen this? I mean, it’s not all that clever a clip, but I understand where they’re going with it.
by controlled_slide on Nov 4, 2009 4:22 PM MST up reply actions
please link large gif's next time
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Nov 4, 2009 6:55 PM MST up reply actions


















