More money means Monfort is feeling good about Matt

by Rox Girl on Feb 25, 2008 2:52 PM MST in Rockpile Comment 10 comments

In Tracy Ringolsby's article this morning, Charlie Monfort pointed out a couple of interesting tidbits in regards to the Rockies revenue stream as we enter our post NL Championship season. Of greatest note is the fact that single game ticket sales are over 20% higher than the year ago pace at this time. This is a good sign, as is the optimism around a possible Matt Holliday extension:

The Rockies also are hoping they set the stage for a deal that will keep Matt Holliday in town into his free-agency eligibility by signing a contract that covered his remaining two years of arbitration.

"You never know if the negotiations will work out or not but, obviously, we want to keep Matt," Monfort said. "Our team is young and it has had success, which we feel is important to Matt. Matt likes Colorado. He has bought a home in Denver. He likes the players on this team and the organization. The piece that is missing is financial.

"Hopefully, that can be resolved in the next year or so. Our intention is to come up with a contract that both sides feel is fair and allows the relationship between Matt and the Rockies to continue."

If you can recall the weeks that led up to the Jason Jennings trade, you'll know that Monfort usually lets a little more realism creep into his assessments if he feels there's no chance at a contract, and in fact, in the past he's been less sunny in his outlook regarding keeping Holliday, but clearly the influx of cash has him a little more upbeat.

While that 20% plus increase in the number of tickets sold is right in line with the 25% increase in player payroll this year, remember that this is also on top of a healthy price increase, so you know the team's still coming out ahead here. So long as the Rockies don't flop out of the gate, that trend should continue into the summer. The simple math of this makes it clear why a team that's pledged to stay cash flow positive should suddenly feel more at ease with the prospects of signing a superstar like Holliday.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Matt

$9M
$13M

What kind of long term deal are we looking at here? 6 years $120Mil?

vr, Xei

NL West Bullpen Rankings

by Xeifrank on Feb 25, 2008 3:47 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

& his agent is Scott Boras.

6y/$20 million per is about the number that has been thrown out. This is similar to Carlos Lee's contract last year in Houston.

I miss Kaz! He really could Rock-a-Rhyme, even if it was Tricky

by Redhawk on Feb 25, 2008 4:59 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

ouch....

As much as I appreciate Holliday, this is too much for the Rockies to pay for one player. The added revenue--at least from ticket sales--probably won't even cover it and it would hurt the chances of the Rockies signing other players in the future.

by DenverBears on Feb 26, 2008 8:16 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah

I fully expect his contract to be around that ballpark, averaging $20 mil a year. 6 years sounds good too.
Speaking of big contracts, how much longer is Helton locked up for?

"This is a game to be savored, not gulped. There's time to discuss everything between pitches or between innings." -- Bill Veeck

by TheChamp on Feb 26, 2008 2:09 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

through 2011

I keep on forgetting to mention that one aspect of Tulo's deal is that for the first time since Helton signed that nine year extension, a Rockie has contract certainty beyond him.

by Rox Girl on Feb 26, 2008 4:21 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The Future

See, I don't really like signing guys for as long as Helton was signed for. Really, anything more than 5/6 years is pushing it because, well, its too risky and you can end up putting a big chunk of your payroll into a guy who isn't at that level anymore. Kinda like what happened to Kevin Brown, Helton, Giambi, Thome, etc.
I'm really hoping the Rockies can keep this team together for the future. Need to start locking up some of these guys, although the biggest question mark IMO is at 3B with Atkins. I honestly thought we should've possibly looked at trading him and adding a quality pitcher. Well, I actually don't know if we looked into that or not, or heck, maybe there was nobody worth trading for, or Atkins value may be less than expected due to the "Coors Field factor".
The offense is set, pitching, do your thing and lets go on another ride to the World Series!

"This is a game to be savored, not gulped. There's time to discuss everything between pitches or between innings." -- Bill Veeck

by TheChamp on Feb 26, 2008 7:07 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Surprisingly, so far

Helton's deal actually appears to be a winner for both the player and the team, as the sum value of what he's contributed to the Rockies in terms of wins is pretty much in line with his salary. The last year of the deal, when he gets over eighteen million and bought out of the option he'll almost certainly change that, but for right now, locking up Helton for so long has turned out okay.

That said, I'm in complete agreement with you that I'd never, ever want the team to make that kind of long commitment to a player again.

by Rox Girl on Feb 26, 2008 8:50 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

2001

This long term problem is especially true in 2001 when the Rockies signed Hampton and Neagle to money and long term deal. I think Helton's was a good deal especially since they had to build around somebody to get to where they are now. It just took a lot longer than it should have. No more 10 year contracts, it is too much money.

GO ROCKIES!!! JFK

by jrockies on Feb 26, 2008 1:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers

are generally a lot less predictable than hitters, particularly with the injury risk involved. You can usually predict with some certainty what established major league hitters are going to do, even five or six years out (though the steroid era changed that a bit.) That's why the Hampton and Neagle contracts were so awful, while the Helton contract hasn't been all that bad.

http://mvn.com/mlb-rockies: The best thing to happen to baseball since 1993.

by Rox Fan in TN on Feb 26, 2008 2:36 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

True

I agree that a pitcher is more at risk than some position players but neither pitcher got injured in his stay with the Rockies. They just did not perform up to the standards of their large contracts. Neagle was kicked off the team for reasons outside of baseball. Helton has done some good things for the team though.

GO ROCKIES!!! JFK

by jrockies on Feb 26, 2008 10:07 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs