Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe to RSS   Add to My Yahoo!

September 16, 2008 10:12 PM

Rockie Road

DREW0917.gif

Is this Blake St. or Wall St.?
The cold winds of Rocktober await. There will be no parades or World Series tickets or pandemonium in the state of Colorado this year. It's hard to know which is falling faster, our bank accounts or the Rockies? Suffice to say neither are in great shape. Still, there is great solace in knowing this...there will be some great seats available for next season.

Skip the Holliday season.
I say let Matt Holliday go already. I remember hearing this football coach from some little school in Northern Nebraska on sports talk one night on the way home. He was asked if he recruited in Colorado very much. "Not much" he replied. "Any kid who would rather live in Nebraska instead of Colorado is just too stupid to play for me." So that, too, is my synopsis about the Matt Holliday mess. If he doesn't really want to be here, then why make him stay? Sure, he can go on record as saying the Rockies can make it work and , oh, gee, I really want to be a Rockie. But it's all lip service isn't it? I mean, if he wants to be here next season and beyond the answer is simple. Fire Scott Boras and negotiate the deal. But don't hold your breath on that. Or you'll be as red faced as that arrow in the cartoon.

Drew



Discussion

  • September 17, 2008

    7:09 AM

    Jeremy writes:

    Drew,
    Those are some pretty harsh words for Matt Holliday. Consider that just last year he went over Boras' head and negotiated a 2-year extension, foregoing arbitration, which he didn't have to do. It looks to me like he's made a pretty good case, backed up by dollars that he left on the table, that he wants to be here.
    I understand that for most pro athletes, this is just lip service, but in Holliday's case, he has already put his money where his mouth is. Now we'll see if the Rockies ownership will reciprocate with a long term contract and a no-trade clause.

  • September 18, 2008

    5:20 AM

    Tracy Ringolsby writes:

    Jeremy, whatmakes you say Mattt went over Boras' head and negotiated a 2-year extension? Last year, the two-year deal was not an extension. It was a contract to cover the arbitration years, not free agent years, and the negotiations were handled by Boras.

  • September 18, 2008

    5:23 AM

    Tracy Ringolsby writes:

    Drew, there was not a two-year extnesion negotiated during the winter. There was a two-year contract that covered Holliday's two years of arbitration, and had nothing to do with his free agent years. The neogtiations were handled by Boras. That does not mean, however, that Matt cannot take charge of the free agent talks, but the two-year deal signed last winter, which there was some feeling could be a prelude to an eventual extension, does not illustrate Matt going over Boras' head.

Join the discussion

Required
Required (Will not be published or sold)

Videos

More Videos »

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.

About this blog

Search this blog

Recent posts

Posts by topic