Sunday Rockpile: Seriously, please no Carl Pavano.

Truthfully there likely is probably going to be some kill the messenger going on with any criticism, fair or not, of our favorite baseball organization, and that goes for the players, the manager, and the GM/front office. Think of it like Fox Mulder’s “I want to believe” poster from the X-Files.

There probably is some automatic eye-rolling going on with your arguments as soon as they see the GoRoxGo brand attached, regardless of their merit. As somebody who’s been blogging for over a decade now, I would just suggest to get used to it. If you get in the habit of taking a position, it’s going to happen.

So I’ll repeat myself too…

We have discussed the issue. People have told you where they stand. They have given you their reasons, whether you deem them acceptable or not. Continuing to beat the drum on the topic certainly comes across as trying to beat people into submission, even if you actually mean it as some Ahabian search for the great white whale of the “good” argument in support of O’Dowd…

but unlike you, I haven’t seen them. Acquiring Carl Pavano, for instance, is not a desperate GM move, it’s a move that says the GM feels they have at least into 2013. There’s no way that O’Dowd can really expect him to be a pennant inducing impact type of player for the Rockies in 2012.

A GM that’s getting a little too comfortable and secure, so that there’s less incentive to win in the near term. I don’t know if he realizes how sickening it is to watch the Diamondbacks win another division title for those of us fans who have been rooting for Colorado from 1993.

actually stated in a way I haven’t said before….

I think there are two scenarios in which you replace an employee: 1. A guy who is so unquestionably terrible at their job that literally anybody would be better OR 2. You identify an opportunity to upgrade the position because you have identified a better candidate out there.

In case #1, you are going to fire the person. You have nothing to lose by doing so, because that person is literally a negative to your organization and anybody could do better. In case #2, you are only going to fire that person if you have identified a better candidate and determined you can obtain their services. In my mind, O’Dowd is absolutely NOT case #1. I can definitely see case #2 applying, but I would have to see the names of the replacements who are going to be upgrades, and who would be obtainable for us. To me, this question revolves more about being convinced on the quality of the alternatives, because I am not convinced and am not going to be convinced that firing Dan O’Dowd is an upgrade under every possible circumstance.

Because I agree with you that the past few years have been disappointing, masked by the veil of a fringe contending team in a weak division. I’m also worried about him making bad decisions which for our fringe status could be deadly for a few seasons.

For me, it’s DOD overvaluing and over-relying on homegrown talent.

However, DOD had every reason to trust his player development system. What the team accomplished with Helton, Holliday, Hawpe, Tulo, Atkins, Cook, Francis, Jennings, Ubaldo, Barmes, and Iannetta, even guys like Spilborghs, Smith, and Sullivan – he’d be crazy not to think we have a good thing going.

However, the majority of those guys have moved on and newer guys, with incredible pedigrees (either on draft position or minor league numbers) like Chacin, Reynolds, Weathers, Nelson, Stewart, even Fowler, and EY2 have either not produced or have produced inconsistently showing DOD a strict reliance on homegrown talent does not always work.

Now is the first time in his tenure he has the pressure to win coupled with a realization that we can’t just fill pieces internally because they may not work out or we may not have the time to let them figure it all out.

I personally think this is the first season where DOD (and fans) have realized things need to change. He was in a good spot and got pretty comfy. I want to see how he handles this.

I’d also like to point out that I think a lot of the flack you’ve received in this thread is perfectly encapsulated in your response. At no point did you really address anything I said and just proceeded to push what you think about things which have focused either on macro-level matters such as win-loss records over lengthy periods of time, or major draft gaffes (no Longoria), and has ignored the teams improved (albeit still disappointing) win/loss records, and the recent string of drafts which have looked a lot better from a logical standpoint (if not from a results standpoint)