Skip to content

Can someone please explain the Troy Tulowitzki deal to me?

Nov 30, 2010, 6:26 AM EST

Troy Tulowitzki

At least from the Rockies’ perspective?

Tulowitzki is a great talent. If I were starting a team now he’d be on the short list of players who might be my first pick. He’s obviously loved in Colorado.  But a six year extension that starts in 2015? Really? What was motivating the Rockies to extend a guy who was under team control through 2014 already? Was the prospect of Todd Helton’s deal finally falling off the books in 2013 too scary to contemplate? “Quick! We need to find a way to spend an unreasonable chunk of our limited payroll on one player after 2013! Sign Tulo for a decade, stat!”

A lot can happen in four seasons. Ask Eric Chavez. There is a possibility that the extension portion of this deal is an albatross before it even kicks in.  And what about value for the length of the deal? Derek Jeter made a ten year contract work, but at least he was on the verge of free agency at the time. Todd Helton is proof positive — right in front of the Rockies’ noses — that a deal of that length can go sideways. Helton’s was originally a nine-year deal. It was pretty good four four years. It was serviceable for a fifth. Since then he has been a role player or worse, making so much money that it has limited the Rockies’ financial flexibility to go out and get other pieces.

The same could easily happen to Tulowitzki. Indeed, I’d say that odds favor it. The per-annum dollars themselves aren’t crazy, but that length and the timing is.  This isn’t as bad as Alex Rodriguez’s current deal, but unless the economics of the Colorado Rockies change fundamentally, it will eat up a larger percentage of team payroll each year than A-Rod’s deal ever did. What was pushing this onto the Rockies’ agenda?

Oh well, it’s not my money.  And hey, there’s a bright side: if mid-market teams are back to signing guys for a decade, I suppose that’s proof positive that the recession is truly over.

  1. mangothefruit - Nov 30, 2010 at 6:46 AM

    I’m sure they probably realize he may not be quite worth 20 million in the latter couple of years of the deal, but it’s worth it overall since they expect him to be more than worth 15 million until his early 30’s, and that’s what this deal is about. The extra years at the end would help him agree to a lower than market value earlier on.

    10/154 is perfectly fine since Joe Mauer got 8/184 and it’s arguably just as difficult to find good offensive players at shortstop as as catcher.

    • Kevin S. - Nov 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM

      Except it’s not 10/154 – they already had him locked up for the first three years and $26 million, plus the club option year (which is advantage: team). Now, they’ve thrown away their flexibility from that option and paid for an additional six years which will comprise the back-end of his prime and his decline phase. Had they signed him to the whole ten-year deal today, as a free agent, it might have made sense, because the back-end years would be paying for the surplus value they’re getting now, but they already had those locked in. There’s basically zero chance Tulo provides any kind of surplus on the extended years, and there’s a great deal of chance that he declines during or before them.

  2. Craig Calcaterra - Nov 30, 2010 at 6:52 AM

    Mauer was on the cusp of free agency, though, was he not? Tulowitzki was already locked up through 2014. What was the urgency? Why now?

    • coloradothistle - Nov 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM

      Because he is a foundational player for the Rockies. He is their face. Helton carries that role right now, but he is getting near the end. As someone who goes to many games a year and watches the rest on tv, I can tell you the fans live and die with him and remain in awe of his defensive prowess on the field. Watching him play is a joy. I think the Rockies have success (gate success) with their identifiable players. Having a young team built on the foundation of Helton (’07) and continuing through Tulo will provide that gate success that they cannot afford by bringing in free agents. Rockies fans are giddy at the prospect of Tulo for life.

  3. mangothefruit - Nov 30, 2010 at 7:18 AM

    Who knows, maybe him or his agent started making noises about how he’d love to spend his career there and the FO decided that sounded more appealing than him leaving after his age 29 season., so they decided to lock him up before he changed his mind. It’s a risk, sure, but most Rockies fans seem happy with it.

  4. Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 7:38 AM

    I don’t understand this. I never understood the Ryan Howard deal either. But this somehow makes that deal look, well, looks sane now doesn’t it? Maybe ball clubs are facing a future shortage of good talent? Do they know something we don’t know? Short stops do seem hard to find lately, but damn.. Somewhere Jayson Werth is smiling from ear to ear. I can’t imagine what kind of deal he and Borass are cooking up now….

    • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:40 AM

      No, this is still better than the Ryan Howard deal. Tulo hasn’t already started declining.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:53 AM

        We will see won’t we???? And how the “eff” do you figure ten years at SS is less risky than 6 at first base? I mean, that barely even makes sense.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM

        Off the top of my head, I’d say it’s because Howard’s extension covers his age 32-36 seasons while Tulo’s covers his age 29-35 seasons, plus Howard has a body type and skill set that tends to age worse than Tulowitzki’s does. While I criticized the viewing of this extension as a ten-year deal because the Rockies already had the first three or four years of it, it still covers the back end of his prime before getting into his decline. Howard’s decline has already started, and his extension is still a year from kicking in. Finally, the Rockies are paying less for a better player at a premium position.

      • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM

        Exactly what Kevin S. said. And Tulo, at least right now, is legitimately an MVP-caliber talent, which Howard hasn’t been all that close to since 2006. Howard has never been worth $25 million a year, which is what they’ll be paying him in his late 30s, when he’s hitting and playing first base like Dave Kingman. At least Tulo has a *chance* of giving the team their money’s worth.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM

        Well, missing 30 – 50 games every other season tells me the opposite. If you look at Troy boy here playing shortstop will break him, and break him quickly. Howard will outlast him, as he’s very, very durable ,and plays a much less dangerous position. Troy has 10 more years to be more durable at a much tougher position, I think you all are smoking stuff if you think this guy will last 10 more years. I think Howard is about 70-30 on lasting out his contract on the other hand. I don’t deny Troy is better. My point is Howard will play till his deal is done, and Troy will be a dead man walking by the end of his contract, if he’s playing still. That’s my point, and one Howard at 25 million per is better than no Troy at 20 million per any day of the week.

      • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM

        The guy tore a tendon once, four seasons ago, and hurt himself this year when he was hit by a pitch on the wrist. Based on that information, you’re declaring that Tulowitzki will be out of baseball? Meanwhile, Ryan Howard missed three weeks this season and is just entering the stage where guys his size tend to start to break down, and he’s “very durable”? This is just the type of decisionmaking that leads to disasters like the Howard contract…

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:07 PM

        Once again he plays short stop. Howard plays first base. Once again you forget 10 years at ss is a totally different thing than 6 years at first base. That’s my point. Both are overpaid in years, I just see Troy has a possibility of not even making it through these 4 years and then 6 more, Howards extension is beginning now, not in 4 years. This is way more insane imo. And let’s not get into that “body type” bs Howard has been injured once since 04. The dude’s a rock.

      • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM

        The dude was a rock in his late 20s, but his performance has already suffered from old-player-skills syndrome, and there’s a real good chance you’re going to see his ability to stay healthy start to suffer too. Because of that “body type” bs.

        What you say I’m “forgetting” I say is just stuff you’ve made up. Yes, shortstop is probably harder on the body than first base, but that’s why better athletes play there. I don’t believe Tulowitzki is substantially more likely to be out of the game in ten years than Howard is in seven. What I would like to do, but can’t, is look at how many players who started out as shortstops are still playing full-time at age 35, compared to players who started out as first basemen. Because shortstops tend to slide down the defensive spectrum, so they won’t show up as shortstops anymore at that age, but I bet a lot are still playing. Meanwhile, first basemen don’t have anywhere to slide once their skills start eroding (except DH, which obviously won’t be an option for the Phils).

        They’re both terrible contracts. But giving a 25 year old MVP-caliber shortstop $20 million from age 30-35 strikes me as just obviously better than handing $25 million per to an already 30 year old overrated ticking time bomb like Howard from 32-36. (And no, the Howard extension actually still doesn’t kick in until 2012.)

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM

        Hey it’s cool Bill. I can handle our difference in opinion here. And we agree whole heartedly that both contracts are pretty crazy. That was my first reaction when Howard got his deal. My reaction to this though differs from you because I think this is further up the crazy meter, that’s all. I just hope you’re as tough on Troy as you are Howard when he gets ready to begin his last 6 years to his crazy long contract.

    • Utley's Hair - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM

      I wouldn’t go as far to say it makes Ryno’s deal look sane, per se. Less insane, yes, but definitely not sane. It is much the same in the too long too soon part—maybe not too much, except that it’s for too long, though.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM

        Agreed. It’s far too long. I just think this one is wayyy crazier.

  5. Panda Claus - Nov 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM

    No, I can’t explain it. As details continue to emerge, this deal seems even more wacko than it did last night when you first mentioned it as a possibility.

    Perhaps this is like when someone buys a classic car before it actually becomes a classic. You know, just in case the price skyrockets overnight on your 1993 Mazda the day it’s eligible for antique license plates. (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

    What happens in 2015 if the Rockies suddenly realize that Tulowitzki is really just like a ’79 AMC Pacer?

  6. Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM

    On second thought. Nothing can explain why he was signed while under team control through 2014. Is MLB cooking up something? Are there going to be new rules put into place teams are trying to beat? Mauer was signed before Free agency kicked in, he was the first to be given a contract of over 23 million per, before hitting Free agency. Howard was the second. Now Troy here gets this sweet deal wayyyyy before it had to be done. Is there an “S” and a cape under that uniform? Because by the time 2014 begins he could be terrible. This couldn’t be because teams anticipate a huge jump in player salaries soon could it?? It seems logical, if you must find logic in this deal.

  7. mcsnide - Nov 30, 2010 at 8:59 AM

    Jeter’s agent just asked the Steinbrenners to trade Levine and Cashman for O’Dowd.

  8. scottkm - Nov 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM

    Until this extension, the Rockies had Jimenez and Tulo becoming free agents in 2014 and CarGo in 2015. Of those three, they knocked out the one most likely to stay with the Rockies long term. But, as a Rockies fan, this reminds me of the Helton and Hampton contracts.

  9. Ari Collins - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM

    Someone brought up the Howard contract, and that’s the first one that came to my mind as well. Carpenter was a similar mistake. Get a discount by signing someone when they’re in the final year of their old contract, sure. But sign someone when they’re four years away from a FA that begins when they turn 30? And without getting some kinda discount? That’s terribad.

  10. hermitfool - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:11 AM

    I share your befuddlement, Craig. The Todd Helton fiasco hasn’t fully played out and they’ve given a loooooong contract to a guy who has trouble staying healthy.

    I can only conclude the Rockheads have secret information that Bud Selig is going to lift the ban on steroids making old ball players better bets than they are at present.

  11. BC - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:27 AM

    How the heck is A-Rod’s deal bad when he’s gone 30-100 for like 14 years in a row (literally)? But yeah, I don’t get the Tulo deal. He hasn’t been the healthiest dude around, even last year. I think Jeter’s been hurt once in his career – the year he missed like 6 weeks with a knee. Tulo is an accident waiting to happen it seems.

    • Kevin S. - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:32 AM

      Well, because he’s currently getting paid to be a perennial MVP candidate, a five-tool player with plus defense at a premium position. While he’s still playing like a star, he’s not at the level his contract suggests, and chances are he’ll decline more sharply than his contract does over the next seven years.

    • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM

      Because we’re talking about the one he signed pre-2008, so most of those 14 years are irrelevant. So far, he’s declined significantly in each of the three years of that contract and still has seven years and $174 million left to go.

      • BC - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM

        You’re basing that off of 2007 – which was a totally sick year. The other 4 of the past 5 years are roughly the same. His defense has stayed the same (by appearances, not by UZR which I’m sure some Sabre-geek will shove in my face). Only thing that has dropped off are stolen bases, but face it, if he’s batting cleanup between Texiera and Cano, who cares if he steals a base all year?
        I hate the guy, but A-Rod is still a stud.

      • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM

        Right, 2008 is a “decline” based on 2007, but 2008 was basically in line with his career numbers. Then 2009 was a small step back from there, and 2010 was the worst year of his career any way you look at it. I don’t know where you get “the only thing that’s dropped off are stolen bases” — his batting average, walks and power all fell WAY off last season.

        .270/.341/.506 is good, but hardly a “stud,” and hardly someone you’re going to be excited about paying $20 million a year for five, six and seven years from now.

      • BC - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:07 PM

        How the heck is 30-125 a bad year? And 35 to 30 HR – especially missing some time – is not a big dropoff. I doubt you’ll see him hit 55 HR’s again, but sign me up for 35-115 minimum next year. THAT is a stud. 14 guys went 30-100 last year. They’re studs. A-Rod still has 3 or 4 good years left in the field (failing catastrophic injury), then he’ll be a DH like Yazstremski was for his last few years and wipe Barry Bonds off the books.
        Sorry, the guy’s still a stud.

      • BC - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:09 PM

        (I’m having a lot of fun stirring things up with this by the way)

      • Kevin S. - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM

        A-Rod’s not getting paid like he’s the fourteenth-best hitter in baseball – he’s getting paid like he’s far and away the best player in baseball. He will still be getting paid like he’s one of the best five-ten players in baseball seven years from now. Nobody’s saying A-Rod’s a zero, they’re saying his production is not consummate with the contract he currently has.

      • BC - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:33 PM

        I suppose that’s fair. It sure was commensurate with his performance coming off of 2007 though. But at the same time, what is commensurate? Is Ryan Howard’s contract commensurate with his production? Will it be in a year? Two? I mean, if everyone’s pay was commensurate with their production, Albert Pujols would be making $50 million a year. And everyone not named Johan Santana on the Mets would be making $1.50. A lot of it is in the timing I suppose.

      • billtpa - Nov 30, 2010 at 2:24 PM

        Well, if what you’re going on is HR and RBI totals, you’ve already lost. There were at least 40 players in 2010 more valuable than Alex Rodriguez (and that’s position players only). If they’re *all* studs, your definition of “stud” has kind of lost its meaning.

        He dropped from 35 to 30 HR in 2009, but also dropped from 33 doubles to 17. Then he stayed at 30 HR in 2009, but in almost 80 more at-bats, giving him his lowest SLG since age 21. At the rate he’s going, you can’t just expect him to keep performing at even this significantly diminished level. He’s likely to keep declining, possibly to the point where DHing him just doesn’t even make sense for a team like the Yankees anymore. Take a look at anyone you like who had a monster year at age 31 and then declined significantly between 32 and 34. They don’t tend to just level off for five or six years at thirty-five.

  12. scrunchify - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:12 AM

    billtpa is right on the money… a-rod’s contract is a joke and was prompted by the perceived need to
    fill the new stadium as he went after the home run record… it will be a bigger joke as a-rod totters into his 40’s.

    re the tulo contract, how about this ??? baseball owners and gm’s, as a group are really stupid.they consistently
    overpay for highly talented players and exaggerate the margin of difference between the stars and the
    everyday journeymen contributors.. a superstar in basketball can take half his team shots and always be the
    go-to guy down the stretch. a-rod, tulo, etc. get the same number of at-bats as the bargain rate guys and they don’t
    get to bat automatically in the bottom of the 9th. baseball stars have less impact on a teams performance than in any
    other sport yet they are paid more money than in any other sport. i exempt pitchers because they have huge impact on a given game but they only pitch 20%of the games.
    like i said, the baseball execs and owners are stupid. they may be good lawyers, shipbuilders and computer whizzes but
    they don’t have a clue about the game they administer.

    • Charles Gates - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM

      Your comments make me laugh.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM

      You have to be a troll. No way you can make this comment:

      consistently overpay for highly talented players and exaggerate the margin of difference between the stars and the everyday journeymen contributors

      And then turn around and say the Yanks should overpay Jeter for what he’s “worth” on this page.

      http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/30/the-state-of-the-jeter-negotiations/

      • Charles Gates - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM

        Your comments make me nod.

  13. Utley's Hair - Nov 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM

    Why not go for a Jersey Devils—or Bobby Bo—type 17 year deal?

  14. apbaguy - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM

    I said it yesterday and I’ll repeat it now: Tulo will end up as the Rockies 3B by the end of the contract. SS is a brutal position physically, especially as big guys mature and put on more weight. Ripken and A-Rod are good examples. Tulo is similar to them in build and figures to end up at third. Given that, the deal is still a huge risk for the Rockies. Since one guy doesn’t win a championship, how are they going to pay for the rest of the team?

    • BC - Nov 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM

      Tulo is that big?

      • mcsnide - Nov 30, 2010 at 1:35 PM

        6’3″, 215

  15. uyf1950 - Nov 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM

    I’m intrigued by the discussion on players worth being discussed here. To be honest it’s also a welcome relief from all the Jeter stuff. I know the above discussions have centered on long term contracts. But I thought I would throw the below in. Here are the top 25 players pay for 2010. I’m not going to be a hypocrite and stand here and say the players listed for the Yankees are deserving because I personally don’t believe any player deserves these types of dollars, but they are what they are. My point is of the 25 listed for 2010 most fans would be hard pressed to pick 5 that are deserving of the 2010 salaries. Like I said I needed a from from all the Jeter stuff.

    1. Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees- $ 33,000,000
    2. C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees- $ 24,285,714
    3. Derek Jeter, New York Yankees- $ 22,600,000
    4. Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees- $ 20,625,000
    5. Johan Santana, New York Mets- $ 20,144,707
    6. Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers- $ 20,000,000
    7. Carlos Beltran, New York Mets- $ 19,401,569
    8. Ryan Howard, Philadelphia Phillies- $ 19,000,000
    9. Carlos Lee, Houston Astros- $ 19,000,000
    10. Alfonso Soriano, Chicago Cubs- $ 19,000,000
    11. Carlos Zambrano, Chicago Cubs- $ 18,875,000
    12. John Lackey, Boston Red Sox- $ 18,700,000
    13. Manny Ramirez, Chicago White Sox- $ 18,695,006
    14. Torii Hunter, Los Angeles Angels- $ 18,500,000
    15. Barry Zito, San Francisco Giants- $ 18,500,000
    16. Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle Mariners- $ 18,000,000
    17. Magglio Ordonez, Detroit Tigers- $ 17,825,976
    18. Todd Helton, Colorado Rockies- $ 17,775,000
    19. Aramis Ramirez, Chicago Cubs- $ 16,750,000
    20. A.J. Burnett, New York Yankees- $ 16,500,000
    21. Matt Holliday, St. Louis Cardinals- $ 16,333,327
    22. Chris Carpenter, St. Louis Cardinals- $ 15,840,971
    23. Roy Halladay, Philadelphia Phillies- $ 15,750,000
    24. Vernon Wells, Toronto Blue Jays- $ 15,687,500
    25. Hiroki Kuroda, Los Angeles Dodgers- $ 15,433,333

    • mcsnide - Nov 30, 2010 at 1:58 PM

      Nice list. Say a WAR turns out to be worth $4.3 mil or so for 2010. Using fWAR because I’m too lazy to look it up in multiple places, the following players from your list are deserving of their salaries (within 1/2 WAR or so):

      C.C., Miggy, Lackey, Ichiro, Holliday, Carpenter, Halladay, Wells, and Kuroda. Of course fWAR uses UZR, so take it with all the usual caveats. But it’s still an interesting discussion starter. Personally, I was surprised to see that Lackey and Ichiro earned their pay, and stunned to see Wells on the good list. There are several other players who had good years, just not enough to justify their salaries (A-Rod and Santana are the obvious picks).

      The thing that really jumped out at me – the Cubs are REALLY REALLY bad at identifying the right guys to give huge contracts.

    • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 5:00 PM

      Awesome list. Very good point. So maybe what we have here is a different perspective than ball clubs do on a player’s value? Here we are freaking out about the money because “it’s way more than they’re worth” And while I agree with it, and think it’s true as well, Ball clubs obviously DO NOT AGREE. On the business end of things, being wrong that often when approaching these larger than life contracts which = operating costs just doesn’t happen that often. I don’t know, maybe we need to lower the standards we feel are deserving of this kind of contract?

      Or everyone running these teams are a bunch of monkey’s wearing human costumes. Which I tend to prefer myself…. I enjoy that idea much more.

      • mcsnide - Nov 30, 2010 at 6:15 PM

        I like that idea as a Red Sox fan. If the GM is a monkey wearing a Theo suit, the whole “Theo escaped fans’ notice by dressing as a gorilla” story makes much more sense.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM

        Picturing any GM acting like a monkey, banging on his desk, Going “ooh ohh aahh ahh” Is Frigging hilarious! And it answers some serious questions some of us had as well….

    • uyf1950 - Nov 30, 2010 at 5:12 PM

      A side point to the list I posted is that very few long term contracts benefit the clubs. Most as you can see from the above list tend to work in favor of the players over the length of the contracts.

      • mcsnide - Nov 30, 2010 at 6:18 PM

        Right. I think a lot of GMs care about getting the great player’s next 3-4 years at any cost and don’t worry that much about the long term. Considering the short shelf life of GMs, they probably figure that ten year contract will be the next guy’s problem.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 30, 2010 at 6:47 PM

        That’s exactly what that says. It also tells me that the clubs should, and probably do plan for this exact thing. They know it’s going to happen, it’s going to be the exception where it doesn’t result in an overpaid, declining athlete. And I guess at the moment they feel it’s worth it for the production they give today. That still doesn’t mean in any way they should do it with too many players, and looking at the list, Jeter has bad timing. Yankees are stacked at the top for salaries already. And they want another ACE.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 30, 2010 at 7:08 PM

        To Jonny 5 – Jeters timing is bad in 3 ways. First, he’s 36 going on 37 just a few months into the next season. Second, he’s coming off a bad year, a very bad year compared to both 2009 and his career numbers. Third, he’s dealing with the sons who have a different mindset then their father.
        Thirty six or thirty seven year old’s just don’t get long term contracts, especially coming off a bad year. That’s just reality.

    • BC - Dec 1, 2010 at 11:02 AM

      I don’t know what is a bigger joke, Lackey making $18.7mil or Halliday only being 23rd on the list.

  16. scrunchify - Nov 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM

    to churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

    a troll? stupid, a moron, dumb … maybe… but a troll?

    i admit to gross inconsistency. i believe that jeter should be paid in the context of his long career and what
    he has meant to the franchise and the city. that is emotion speaking but for a fan, emotion must play a
    role. if it didn’t , i’d be collecting coins, playing chess or throwing darts at pictures of keith olbermann.

    ufy1950’s list of the 25 highest salaries in 2010 supports my contention that the players perceived as stars
    are grossly overpaid and that the people who trip over themselves to shell out that kind of money are stupid.
    it’s an ego driven auction mentality … ask tom hicks.

    jeter is probably worth 2 years at a total of $17m and i would give him 4 years at a total of $76m. i can’t get
    more inconsistent than that so rip me up guys.

  17. scrunchify - Nov 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

    to churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

    apologies … i don’t spend enough time on the internet. my only definition of a troll was a mythological
    monster and i now discover that in modern terms it describes someone who makes inflammatory
    statements on the internet. i don’t consider the statement you found offensive particularly inflammatory
    but since you do, troll certainly applies. it’s probably a little better than dumb, moron or stupid so i’ll
    settle for troll.

  18. Adam - Nov 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

    I wonder if, with this contract, the Rockies are going to tell the city they’re “committed to winning” and ask for $100 million in renovations to Coors Field?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (3225)
  2. J. Kang (3080)
  3. C. McGehee (2801)
  4. W. Middlebrooks (2772)
  5. J. Upton (2757)
  1. D. Ross (2473)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (2324)
  3. J. Shields (1839)
  4. M. Kemp (1785)
  5. M. Prado (1770)