Sunday Rockpile: The Mechanism of Losing

by Rox Girl on May 10, 2009 11:12 AM MDT in Rockpile Comment 31 comments

Asked by Dave Krieger when change becomes necessary, Dan O'Dowd said this:

"I don't know if there's a magic number to that, but I do think if you get to a point that a change needs to be made for the best interests of the organization, you know it," O'Dowd said. "I don't feel that. That's not something I would recommend at this point in time."

So what O'Dowd seems to be suggesting is that there must be roadmarks that would place an organization in that "change is necessary" zone, but that the Rockies aren't at that spot yet. Let's humor the GM for a moment and assume that to be true. The two questions would then be: A) Where are the Rockies if not at the "change is necessary" part of the map? and B) What more could go wrong to bring them there?

Will a disaster of a home stand bring the Rockies to the "change is necessary" point?

In a Troy Renck article, O'Dowd says no:

"I think that's unfair. We are just focusing on getting this thing right," O'Dowd said. "What does it help to speculate about (Hurdle)? I know we live in an industry and a society where everybody wants to play the blame game. I don't."

Hurdle chips in a quote or two, too:

"I have never backed away from a challenge," Hurdle said. "Our players need to do honest self-evaluation, and I need to do the same. We need to keep hanging in there together."

Okay, since our front office and management are ready for honest assessment time, maybe we can help them out. What parts of the organization are not good enough to be competitive, and what parts are not?

I've done this in comments, but let me just put this here. A "competitive" player to me is one that's performing in the top six of the NL, or top 25 starters, top 35 relievers. A .500 level of player would rank between #7 or #11 at their position, be in the 26-50 range for starters, or 36-70 range for relievers. Any players that don't meet these standards are sub-.500 players, they simply aren't keeping up with the rest of the league. I will categorize them by using run values from FanGraphs for most of the players, but Baseball Prospectus' WXRL for the relievers, since it takes leverage context into account (a scoreless inning thrown by a reliever in a close game is more valuable than one in a blowout).

Players that are performing at a competitive level:

Jorge De La Rosa
Ubaldo Jimenez
Jason Marquis
Seth Smith

Players that are performing at a .500 level:

Brad Hawpe
Todd Helton
Chris Iannetta
Yorvit Torrealba
Alan Embree
Matt Daley

That Helton and Hawpe are in this category and not the one above speaks to the depth at their positions this season in the National League, but Hawpe might actually be competitive as I'm mistrustful of the way defensive stats measure Rockies outfielders (Willy Taveras and Matt Holliday have improved in their UZR/150 rate this season). At any rate, these players aren't the issue for why the Rockies are losing.

Players that are performing below a .500 level:

Ian Stewart
Clint Barmes
Garrett Atkins
Ryan Spilborghs
Troy Tulowitzki
Dexter Fowler
Aaron Cook
Jason Hammel
Jason Grilli
Ryan Speier (DL)
Matt Belisle
Huston Street
Manny Corpas
Jeff Baker (DL)
Franklin Morales (DL)

15 players with the Rockies are in the sub-.500 category vs. only 10 at a mediocre level or above. Of these underperformers, Hammel, Fowler, Tulo and Stewart are young, talented, and could/should get better. Tulo, in fact, already seems to be rebounding. Barmes and Spilborghs have faltered in their attempts to seize starting roles, and worked much better as bench players last season. Atkins and Cook are the season's big disasters, if the Rockies were to be competitive, Garrett would have needed a rebound season and Cook would have needed to maintain his prior levels of performance.

The really cold and honest assessment would say that there are likely going to be some players in this group who simply should not be expected to raise themselves to a .500 or competitive level of play going forward in their baseball careers. I think Jeff Baker, who's had a setback in his rehab, qualifies in this department. I think Barmes does too, and as his slump protracts, it seems more and more likely that Atkins will fall into this camp going forward as well. The team is in deep trouble in the future if a good portion of these pitchers continue to underperform.

Players with irrelevant amounts of use:

Matt Murton
Omar Quintanilla

The Rockies failure this season seemingly comes down to two main things:

The team did not identify its weakness at second and third base.
The team did not build a quality bullpen.

You might start to see why O'Dowd would be relunctant to point the finger at Hurdle, because that points to a team construction failure, not an on the field leadership failure. The second base issue was as glaring and apparent in the off season as it is now and has been for some time. The decision not to trade Atkins in the off season was a gamble, one that I supported, but it didn't pay off and has proven to be a mistake.

The bullpen collapse by a group of pitchers that were mostly positives for their teams in 2008 is somewhat random, and I think this is where O'Dowd and Hurdle are probably expecting the biggest return going forward, as well as from Aaron Cook, so maybe a little bit of leeway can be given there.

For the problems at second and third, the issue is a little more worrisome. Stewart may need a AAA refresher, but the Rockies would still be left with two sinkholes in the lineup. Barmes has just three hits in his last 27 AB's, Atkins has four in his last 29, but how much more can we expect from them at this point?

So how would a GM go about fixing this mess if a managerial change is off the table? O'Dowd also says that a trade is unlikely, that the best they could do to shake things up right now is call somebody up from AAA, but who would he call up? EY2 really isn't likely to be better at this point than Stewart or Barmes. Mike McCoy at second or third might be just a bit better, but he's not exactly the Chauncey Billups type of impact player the Rockies would need to kickstart things.

Ian Stewart, Aaron Cook and the bullpen need to rebound for the Rockies to get any sort of dignity back this year. I really don't have much confidence in Barmes or Atkins doing the same. The team needs to figure out how to turn it's surplus in the outfield into something positive for next season. Given the hole the Rockies have dug for themselves at this point I think focusing on 2009 in trades won't be as much benefit. I worry about the kind of blow-ups that can happen if a GM feels desperate for immediate wins such as what happened in Houston a few seasons ago.

Still, right now, rooting for the Rockies is depressing, frustrating and futile. As a fan, I don't want to throw money at a product to come away with those feelings. To me, were I a GM, I would consider this point, the point when the bulk of your consumers no longer want to financially support the product the point that "a change needs to be made for the good of the organization."

If O'Dowd's not going to give a magic number, I will. The Rockies have one more week. If they are still at the bottom of the NL West on Saturday night, well, all I can threaten them with is the railings of a blog writer, but let's just say that if it's the case that this team is still in the cellar next Sunday morning or even if it's not but it hasn't had a winning week, I'm going to rail and rail hard. Wins, Rockies. Wins.

***

At any rate, here are more links.

Dexter Fowler's mom gets a spotlight in the Denver Post.

Stewart sends his mom a postcard from the official site.

Jack Etkin's Quick Hits from last night includes some notes on the streaks and stats going on.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thoughts go out to Spilly on Mothers Day. Hope he gets to play today.

"Better move your rental cars, I am about to take BP."
-Glendon Rusch

by Hizilla on May 10, 2009 11:23 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Well done.

Rox girl—very good article. Well-written, lots of good thoughts, and it provides plenty of points for the community to discuss.

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 11:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Tree of Liberty. . . .

All the good images seem horribly inappropriate.

"If we never try, we shall never succeed." - Abraham Lincoln

Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!

by Russ Oates on May 10, 2009 11:28 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Why is Grilli so low?

He’s allowed some inherited runners and rarely has a clean inning, but I’d still consider his performance better than below average…

by WolfMarauder on May 10, 2009 11:30 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

It sort of depends on what measure you're using.

If you use the FanGraphs run values, Grilli’s almost a contender level reliever. If you use WXRL, he drops way down, because when he’s faltered it’s been particularly damaging and when he, as is the case of most of our relievers, has done well, it’s been in less valuable situations with the team already behind or on top by large margins.

by Rox Girl on May 10, 2009 12:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

some thoughts...

—Why would .500 players not be considered “competitive”? If a team were made up of top 6 players and .500 players, that would be a pretty strong team.

—Why use only 2009 stats? 29 games’ worth of stats don’t have a great deal of value, esp. as a fair number of players are rebounding from bad starts (e.g., Street, Cook, Jimenez, Tulo, Iannetta), while others are likely to come down a bit towards their career norms (Hawpe and Marquis). If you include projections for 2009, things start to look a lot different, and this starts looking like a lot more of a GM-level issue.

—I don’t think it makes sense to say the team failed to identify a weakness at 3rd base. Atkins projected to be an average player there, and they had Stewart available as well. In sum, the Rockies didn’t project to be superior at the position, but they seemed better positioned against the possibility of collapse than most teams.

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 11:33 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

To your points...

1. .500 players by themselves are not competitive, it would be those “top six” level players on that hypothetical team you mention that would make it pretty strong, replace those with sub-.500 types and the team flips to the weak category. I did say in the post, however, that the .500 players weren’t at issue.

2. I use 2009 stats because we’re evaluating 2009’s performance. While what you say is true about players regressing either up or down, it doesn’t change what is the case. Originally I was going to separate this post into sub-categories of players that were moving one way or the other, or likely to, but the post was already late and getting long and cumbersome as it was. I let it work as a comment starter and we can take a closer look at where these players are headed here if we want.

3. That Stewart and Atkins projected to play better doesn’t let the team off the hook for not identifying the weakness at the position, it just means that a broader portion of people (including yours truly) also failed to make said i.d. This might make it a bit more justifiable a miss, but it’s a miss nonetheless.

by Rox Girl on May 10, 2009 12:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you identify a weakness that doesn't exist?

So, if they thought Atkins would play at his career levels, and believed Stewart could be major league player at 3rd, what else do you expect them to do?

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 12:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

See the players and know that they aren't.

The fact of the matter is that the team should have more and better information available to them than we have available to us. As fans, we can only go by numbers because we don’t see these players everyday, the team should have an easier time of evaluating them, however. Atkins’ numbers have been going down since 2006, somebody’s got to be able to spot that this wasn’t going to get any better, or at least not enough better in 2009 to make it worth the Rockies while to hang on to him. Stewart might not have been as easy a call to make, but if somebody gets that Atkins call right and knows that Barmes isn’t really an acceptable option at second, they’ll know that they can’t go into the season relying on just Stew alone for upside at those two positions.

by Rox Girl on May 10, 2009 1:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

/raises hand

I recognized the weakness in Atkins

Matt Murton status: Freed
Garrett Atkins status: Not Traded
Clint Hurdle status: Still Employed by the Rockies

by Andrew Martin on May 10, 2009 2:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Congratulations.

Your solution of Stewart plus Hudson minus Atkins would have been better than where we are at now.

by Rox Girl on May 10, 2009 2:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

:fanfare:

what do i win

Matt Murton status: Freed
Garrett Atkins status: Not Traded
Clint Hurdle status: Still Employed by the Rockies

by Andrew Martin on May 10, 2009 4:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baker suffered a setback in rehab

and won’t be able to swing the bat for a few days per Troy Renck. So that’s not an option as backup 3B is Stew is sent down

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein

by Andrew T. Fisher on May 10, 2009 11:38 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I have...

…tickets for today’s game and, while I always enjoy a day at the ballpark, I can’t recall ever being so ambivalent about heading out to Coors. These guys are pushing my “why should I care?” button really, really hard.

A few weeks of glory in the fall of ‘07 just isn’t enough to keep my fire burning for this team and this organization. I’ve been there since first pitch in ‘93 but, damn, it’s hard to go through this every friggin’ year.

by BroJB on May 10, 2009 11:38 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

You are not alone

I can’t recall ever being so ambivalent about heading out to Coors. These guys are pushing my "why should I care?" button really, really hard.

This general feeling in the Denver area fan base has the Rockies front office really scared. Fans (and people) want to generalize. The feeling seems to be the Rockies are bad, always have been, always will be, so why care? There is part a feeling of the Rockies are a sad joke, to ambivalence on the fans part. And it’s showing up in ticket sales

by Redhawk on May 10, 2009 12:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

UZR for outfielders

That’s a good point…home/road effects. I’ve seen the issue taken up with Lichtman often, but usually in regard to Fenway’s LF. I was wondering about this myself when I noticed what seemed to be home/road splits for Rockies infielders (after looking more closely, the effect seemed related more to sample size). However, it would be worth looking at OF’s, too.

I do believe Lichtman does some work to normalize for park. What can be at issue at times is if the necessary adjustments are made for strange park dimensions and their concomitant effect on fielder positioning (this is where Fenway’s LF usually comes in).

BB-ref uses “Total zone,” which its creator admits is inferior to UZR due the limitations of the pbp data (total zone uses less detailed pbp data). However, the site does list home/road breakdowns, and Hawpe is consistently worse at home. Holliday did better at home except for 2005.

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 11:39 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

O'Dowd's the REAL problem....

O’Dowd has constructed an imbalanced team, and now he says the time isn’t right to point fingers or place blame. How self-serving a comment is THAT?! O’Dowd knows damn well that if such harsh evaluation fell on him, he’d be gone.

Thus, O’Dowd and Hurdle remain joined at the hip. Dan will protect his man because he knows that, by doing do, he really is protecting himself. If Hurdle goes, Dan knows he’s next. Honestly, BOTH should be “booted off the island”. The way the organization has repsonded to their sudden success in 2007 is a travesty. They killed the golden goose once, were given it back in Rocktober, and then proceeded to kill it a second time.

Charlie and Dick Monfort will figure this out in due course, but probably not soon enough to salvage a lost 2009.

by GoRoxGo on May 10, 2009 11:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Why imbalanced?

Why do you think the team is imbalanced? One thing I think O’Dowd has done well in recent years is get rid of the blackholes and have a decent player at each position (with the possible exception of 2nd this year, but I think heading into the season, Barmes/Stewart were a reasonable option. Barmes projected to be below-average, but not far below, and should be a good glove at 2nd after moving over from shortstop).

The problem is getting those superlative players, esp. after letting Holliday go. Despite the best efforts of a Spilly or Smith, that pretty much cancelled out potential gains of having a decent player replace Taveras’s horrid 2008.

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 11:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The imbalance comes from.....

a lack of a solid major leaguer at every position, and the lack of top-tier starting pitching. To O’Dowd, Jason Marquis was the answer to our rotation questions, along with a rookie #5 guy in Greg Smith (who we have yet to see). He failed to bring in a proven 2nd baseman, which is what he should have insisted upon when trading Holliday. Or, he could have traded Atkins to fill some of these holes.

Instead, Holliday was traded for a decent reliever, #5 starter, and an outfielder who may or may not be able to find playing time with the big club later on. The wealth of outfielders to go along with the paucity of infielders is where I see imbalance. The surplus of #4 and #5 starter types and lack of #2 and #1 starters is also imbalance. The weakness of our middle relief is fairly glaring too, though I realize the loss of Buchholz has been damaging so far.

But it’s really 2nd base that was the known hole, and O’Dowd has steadfastly refused to do anything about it for two straight offseasons now. Barmes is not slightly below average…..he’s WAY below average for any everyday 2nd baseman, and maybe only slightly below as a utility guy. A career sub .300 OBP is not gonna cut it for any regular who plays half of his games at Coors, though I know that’s the only venue where Barmes does hit.

by GoRoxGo on May 10, 2009 1:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alright, I've got to say something.

And I don’t mean to come off overly argumentative with you because I know I have in the past, but to me you seem to be conflating different issues, some of which are non-issues, with those that are real problems. Trading Matt Holliday for Gonzalez/Smith/Street still isn’t one of O’Dowd’s weaker decisions of the offseason, trading Luis Vizcaino for Jason Marquis remains one of his stronger decisions and by tossing those moves in with the real issue of not properly addressing the team’s weaknesses your argument loses potency.

We know that the team could use a front of the rotation starter, but C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Derek Lowe all went East, there was no way any of the three would have gone to the Rockies. No other legit, healthy #1 or #2 types were available, as far as I can tell. In other words to say that “To O’Dowd, Jason Marquis was the answer to our rotation questions” is disingenuous, as there can be no way to verify that. We do know that O’Dowd felt that Marquis would help this rotation, which he has, and that the trio we got back from Oakland will help the team somehow, which they may or may not, it’s an incomplete as far as I can tell.

O’Dowd didn’t address the weakness at second, when there were better 2B’s available for relatively cheap via free agency or trade. I don’t think the Holliday trade should be evaluated on this level, but instead on the level you would evaluate a draft. He should have been traded for the best available return, regardless of position of the players brought back. As far as I know, he was, but using a mythical return for him in the way you are sets up an impossible argument. I think the issues need to be kept separate. At any rate you seem to feel Holliday and Atkins were more valuable than other GM’s did, which in Atkins’ case, an overvaluation is part of reason why we should hold O’Dowd accountable.

I think he’s done a solid job building the rotation this year, preparing for the contingency of losing Francis, putting faith in JDLR and Morales and even getting Hammel, which I still think will prove to be a sound move. Not acting on the hole at second base, having too much faith in players like Atkins/Baker/Barmes and not obtaining enough bullpen depth, those are the big O’Dowd issues in my book. Let’s wait until the trades play out to evaluate them but keep them separate.

by Rox Girl on May 10, 2009 3:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are incredibly wrong here

There’s no way that a .234/.292/.396 hitter is worth a guy who’s batting .301/.411/.553 in AAA, a 6.50 K/BB closer, and back-end starting depth.

O’Dowd got fleeced.

Matt Murton status: Freed
Garrett Atkins status: Not Traded
Clint Hurdle status: Still Employed by the Rockies

by Andrew Martin on May 10, 2009 4:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not conflating.....

Trades are tactics. Building a well-rounded team is the strategy. You have to look at all offseason trades and signings to see if the strategy is being carried out.

We knew this offseason that our strength, even without Holliday, was an outfield that had 4 players for 3 positions (Smith, Spilly, Fowler, Hawpe), 5 if you count Stewart getting occasional leftfield starts, 6 if you include Baker. So, why then would O’Dowd trade for a guy like CarGo, a guy who can’t find time with the big club today even though he has torn up AAA? To me, the error here is one of omission, not commision. Once CarGo was acquired, he should have been flipped for a 2nd baseman who could hold the everyday job for a while. We simply do not need another OF in the mix, and Fowler is our CF of present and future (the future part, at least, was known when we dealt for CarGo).

The Marquis trade was a good one, but when I analyze O’Dowd and his failure to build a consistent winner, I think beyond last offseason. His weakness is a failure to find a #1 or #2 guy either by trade or the draft. He got Reynolds. He could have had Lincecum. Later, he let the Snakes trade for Haren and didn’t have an answer for that.

The Holliday trade signaled a lack of strategic preparation by O’Dowd, not due to the players he got, but due to the timing. Holliday should have been traded either in July 2008 or this July. Why did he wait until December? And, given the package received, why not just let him play for the Rockies in his contract year and see what Coorsflated numbers he may have put up playing for a new free agent contract? It’s not like we actually landed so much more last December than we would have in either July ‘08 or ’09. BTW, July ’08 would have been my preference, by far. Did O’Dowd even think ahead back then?

If anyone should have been dealt last December, it should have been Atkins. O’Dowd tends to mis-analyze the value of his talent, and wants too much in return sometimes.

Bottom line, Rox Girl, is that O’Dowd’s Rockies teams have gone a cumulative 689-800 through today, a .463 winning percentage. Why defend him? You like having a team to root for with this constant unimpressive record, Rocktober notwithstanding? O’Dowd has had plenty of time to build a consistent winner, and has failed. Now he doesn’t want people people pointing fingers or placing blame on anybody. NO WONDER!

by GoRoxGo on May 10, 2009 10:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Monforts will only figure this out

when attendance drops to about 14 grand a game. Then they will have a reason to make a change. Until then nothing will happen.

Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?
Author: Jim Bouton

by pedalpusher on May 10, 2009 8:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Overarching issue of lame ducks

The other thing I think of when I think about firing people…O’Dowd and Hurdle are lame ducks. Both have been with the team forever in baseball terms. I think there was adequate knowledge to have made a decision this off-season—either can them or extend them.

I think this affects GM decisions a lot more. One option teams always have is to package up players of value in an effort to better align talent for subsequent seasons. It doesn’t seem likely a lame duck GM would make these types of decisions very well.

So he could can Hurdle. Maybe the team will get a little bump as a result. But underlying problems would still remain to be addressed.

If you look at who was projected to be major contributors among position players, you’d see Tulo, Ianetta, and a bunch of guys who are 29-30, and Helton. The older players are likely as good as they’ll ever be, and still, this team was projected to be about a .500 team at best. On top of that, they will begin age-related declines.

The team has to decide what it’s going to do about that. Do they ride out those players and hope for the team to suddenly become a contender? Or do they move toward dismantle-and-rebuild?

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 11:55 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I have a friend of a friend source

that works for the Rockies. This source isn’t really close to the real action but is enough to get good gossip. His stuff has been hit or miss on accuracy, so take it as you will.

He confirms what PHLP wrote last night in the game wrap, that Ian Stewart would be sent down (he thought after today’s game or tomorrow’s off day. He also mentioned that there were rumors of sending Fowler down and bring up Carlos Gonzales, but this was dropped as it would just add another body to the crowded OF, as they would hope Fowler would be back at the minimum time, and they want CarGo to stick when he is called up.

ROX GIRL WROTE: Still, right now, rooting for the Rockies is depressing, frustrating and futile. As a fan, I don’t want to throw money at a product to come away with those feelings. To me, were I a GM, I would consider this point, the point when the bulk of your consumers no longer want to financially support the product the point that “a change needs to be made for the good of the organization.”

And this kids is the big issue right now in the Rockies front office. Money was going to be tight. Season tickets were way down, as were luxury suite sales. Now they are worried that they will lose walk up sales, making money even tighter. There is a feeling of walking on egg shells on who could be fired, and when, and how deep cuts could be, from both an organizational shake up and a financial cost cutting angle.

There is a feeling that someone or ones will be fired, and it might be good for the anxiety level if this happened sooner rather than later so those left can breath out.

by Redhawk on May 10, 2009 11:55 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice post

Good post. As for those who are afraid of being on the chopping block, are you referring to Hurdle and O’Dowd, or does it go deeper—non-baseball front office folks, player dev types, etc.?

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 12:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

the answer is YES. Who will get the axe, and how wide and deep the axe will swing, and who will get hit with it, is making everyone worried from baseball side, to non-baseball front office side. Everyone.

by Redhawk on May 10, 2009 12:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

uhm, yeah

Now they are worried that they will lose walk up sales, making money even tighter.

In Denver, only the Broncos seem to be immune to the Wins=Box Office formula. Teams that don’t win don’t sell as many tickets as teams that do. This is a basic principal of commerce. When it comes to a person’s disposable income, most folks don’t spend that income on an inferior product. And that is what the Rockies are providing. The Nuggets and the Avs have or have previously had the same issue.

In the current economy, this situation only becomes more obvious. Add in the ambivalence factor, and the Rockies have a serious problem. Which also means that those of us who love them have a serious problem as well.

Gah, I hate this.

The great thing about baseball is that there's a crisis every day. ~Gabe Paul

by rockhead on May 10, 2009 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

good timing on your post

I wanted to add something that I took away from hearing my friend relay what the source said. there seems to be 2 ways to run a financially money making baseball team, especially in Denver.
1) go cheap, cheap. Spend no money on players or development, and people will still show up to Coors Field cause it’s a great place to be on a summer evening. Personally I’ve thought this was the Rockies model. Make money by keeping cost down.

Or 2) put a good competitive well built team using cheap young players and scrap heap guys, and a couple of expensive vets. Might not be in the playoffs every year, but would be competitive enough to be play meaningful games at least through August when school starts. This will drive ticket sales. Make money by adding to the top line (gross sales for none business folks).

Turns out, the Rockies FO REALLY want to be in the 2nd category. Denver is a good sports town, but they really want a winner, and will get excited about a winner. The Rockies think that the best way to make the most money is to get the fans and the town excited about the product. There seems to be much frustration in the FO as to this years development.

by Redhawk on May 10, 2009 12:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's scary stuff

Thanks. That would seem to preclude a Beane type rebuilding…I’d guess that would drive fans away to the tune of 2005 levels.

by FooMan on May 10, 2009 12:08 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Very good insight by all.

FWIW – My two cents

In my view, change is best made with a fresh set of eyes. In the short term, Hurdle needs to be replaced with Baylor as interim and DOD needs to prove over the course of the rest of the season that he can make the necessary decisions to get this team ready for next year. If he doesn’t (FWIW – I don’t think he will), then we need to bring in a new GM and let him make the moves and pick a permanent manager. If the current direction lasts beyond this off season, then we will be in serious jeopardy of wasting the next round of talent and the trading value of the current round (if we already haven’t).

(Side Note: I could be wrong, but I believe a majority of Rowbots thought this team was destine for a .500 season – with fighting for a wild card spot a possibility – and putting ourselves in position to be a contender in 2010. What would the sentiment be if we hadn’t had such a hot first week and then fizzled? Over the course of the season .500 is well within reason and with the right moves, we can be in good shape for next year.)

2010/11 Lineup should look something like this
C Ianetta
1B Helton
2B Nelson/Young
3B Stewart
SS Tulo
LF GarGo
CF Dexter
RF Smith

SP should be some combination of Jimenez, Morales, JDLR, Hammel, Smith, Hirsh, Reynolds, Rynick, Chacin

RP Weathers, Street, and what ever else is available

Unfortunately, being a “small” market team in MLB requires the FO to be right on decisions more often than not – i.e. they can’t afford to be wrong. In our case, DOD’s good decisions have been offset by the bad ones.

Right decisions
Trading Holliday – Three players will more than replace his value over time
Trading Jennings – Bucky alone outperformed JJ and Hirsh seems to be coming around
Trading for Marquis – Cost us a lot less than the Braves trade for Vazquez
Drafting Friedrich – took best available SP late in the 1st Rnd

Wrong decisions
Drafting Reynolds over Longoria – Would have solved 3B and cleanup issues
Drafting Weathers over Jarrod Parker – JP would be a top three Purp
Not trading Atkins – Stewart’s potential should have been more valued than Atkin’s regressive performance
Not fixing 2B hole – Last I checked Grudzielanek and Durham were still available

TGFPR!!

by jlot10 on May 10, 2009 8:27 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs