View Full Version : Rockies fire Buddy Bell

04-26-2002, 09:23 PM
here is the link. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0426/1374394.html)

This is awful. The Rockies made a huge error. Maybe the Rangers will fire Narron and pick up Bell.

04-27-2002, 12:58 PM
rox made a good move... bell didnt know how to win

04-27-2002, 01:04 PM
<< Maybe the Rangers will fire Narron and pick up Bell. >>

GAWD I hope not i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif . Narron's much better.

If Narron is fired though, his replacement has already been hired. In Terry Francona(spl?).

04-27-2002, 07:19 PM
I sure hope it isn't Francona. If you think Bell isn't a winner, you know nothing about him or baseball in general.i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif

04-29-2002, 05:09 PM
Buddy Bell was a fine manager - the owner just wasn't willing to spend enough to keep the team competitive. Plus he has the Ranger connection.

04-29-2002, 05:10 PM
Go to hell, MFFL.

04-29-2002, 09:32 PM
Dooby- what was THAT about?

04-29-2002, 11:04 PM
I was playing around earlier today and pushed the Star Wars thread to the second page.


04-29-2002, 11:11 PM
I. C.


04-30-2002, 03:39 PM
oh my word, the owner spent plenty to keep the team competitive. bell wasnt effective at getting his players to play the game. I've followed this team closely since franchise opening day.. and they've done nothing but bring in awesome talent and watch their winning% drop since bell's overtaking the helm. They've responded quite well to a change in the managerial position and look like they want to win now

04-30-2002, 07:50 PM
i hate to see the rockies give up on buddy bell so quickly

04-30-2002, 10:18 PM
<< oh my word, the owner spent plenty to keep the team competitive. >>

Then why did the payroll drop to $47 mil from $65 mil?

LINK (http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/020315/6/kxzk.html)

March 14, 2002

DENVER (AP) - Despite cutting their payroll during the off-season, the Colorado Rockies have more debt than the baseball's rules permit and could be fined or lose television revenue.

Rockies managing general partner Jerry McMorris said several long-term contracts mean the Rockies are not in compliance with the debt rule, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday.

Teams must meet the debt-ratio rule by June 1 or risk being fined, losing their share of national broadcast payments or being placed in trusteeship. Baseball is requiring that a team's debt be 40 per cent or less of its franchise value.

This is the first year the Rockies have a smaller payroll than the year before. Anticipated payroll this year is $47 million, down from $65 million last year.

McMorris would not discuss specifics, but said the Rockies were carrying debt in addition to the long-term contract commitments to players.

According to the debt ratio rule, a team's debts include stadium debts, loans to club owners and the present-day value of long-term player contracts. A team's value, according to a letter commissioner Bud Selig sent owners last week, is double its annual revenues.

Using the figures Selig presented to Congress, the Rockies' revenues in 2001 were $121 million, which would give the franchise a value of $236 million (after deducting $6 million for the team's revenue-sharing contribution).

In addition to an anticipated payroll of $47 million for the 2002 season, the Rockies have $344.1 million committed beyond the current season in long-term contracts to six players.

The Major League Baseball Players Association may challenge Selig's decision to enforce the debt ratio. The union could claim that making teams adhere to the rule will lower the amount of money teams can spend on player salaries.

04-30-2002, 10:59 PM
great article MFFL. The Rox gave up on Bell and let a lot of their better players get away.

04-30-2002, 11:25 PM
i dont remember saying they increased the payroll this year. Colorado is traditionally one of the big spenders in the league, im surprised that you didnt know that. Their payroll ranks 5th in the national league.. larry walker and other key players had their salaries cut in order to bring in other players.

and doc?? name the &quot;better players&quot; they let get away.

04-30-2002, 11:59 PM
They were middle of the pack in 2001.
LINK (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2001/04/04/salaries_ap/)

Here are the 2001 payrolls
Team Payroll
New York-AL $109,791,893
Boston 109,558,908
Los Angeles 108,980,952
New York-NL 93,174,428
Cleveland 91,974,979
Atlanta 91,851,687
Texas 88,504,421
Arizona 81,206,513
St. Louis 77,270,855
Toronto 75,798,500
Seattle 75,652,500
Baltimore 72,426,328
Colorado 71,068,000
Chicago-NL 64,015,833
San Francisco 63,332,667
Chicago-AL 62,363,000
Houston 60,382,667
Tampa Bay 54,951,602
Pittsburgh 52,698,333
Detroit 49,831,167
Anaheim 46,568,180
Cincinnati 45,227,882
Milwaukee 43,089,333
Philadelphia 41,664,167
San Diego 38,333,117
Kansas City 35,643,000
Florida 35,504,167
Montreal 34,774,500
Oakland 33,810,750
Minnesota 24,350,000

05-01-2002, 12:04 AM
LINK (http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/baseball/mlb/stories/040402dnspobasealary.915d.html)

Payrolls and average salaries for 2002
Rank Team Payroll
1. NY Yankees $125,928,583
2. Boston 108,366,060
3. Texas 105,302,124
4. Arizona 102,820,000
5. Los Angeles 94,850,952
6. NY Mets 94,633,593
7. Atlanta 93,470,367
8. Seattle 80,282,668
9. Cleveland 78,909,448
10. S. Francisco 78,299,835
11. Toronto 76,864,333
12. Chi. Cubs 75,690,833
13. St. Louis 74,098,267
14. Houston 63,448,417
15. Anaheim 61,721,667
16. Baltimore 60,493,487
17. Philadelphia 57,955,000
18. Chi. Sox 57,052,833
19. Colorado 56,851,043
20. Detroit 55,048,000
21. Milwaukee 50,287,833
22. Kansas City 47,257,000
23. Cincinnati 45,050,390
24. Pittsburgh 42,323,598
25. Florida 41,979,917
26. San Diego 41,425,000
27. Minnesota 40,225,000
28. Oakland 39,679,746
29. Montreal 38,670,500
30. Tampa Bay 34,380,000

05-01-2002, 02:46 PM
i cant argue with someone who doesnt know anything about the team

05-01-2002, 03:52 PM
I can't argue with someone who refuses to look at facts.

05-01-2002, 03:55 PM
it does get old

05-01-2002, 04:40 PM
your facts are meaningless in this argument. the owner put in plenty of money to make this team very competitive.. coming out of spring training this was supposed to be the best talent the team has ever had. Bell's attitude of stoicism and near depression after losses kept the team's attitude down with it. He did nothing to shake them out of it. Nothing at all. Managers make the difference. It's their team. They call the shots. They decide who plays. They set the tone.

05-01-2002, 08:58 PM
<< Managers make the difference. It's their team. They call the shots. They decide who plays. They set the tone. >>

Managers can only do so much in a positive or negative way. Was it Torres who won for the Yankees or Jeter, Clemens, Rivera, and Bernie Williams? The owner and GM did not assemble a good team, you are blaming the wrong person - that would be like blaming Narron for the failure of last year's Rangers.

And if they had fired Bell last year that would have been another issue - the team DID underperform last year. What did you expect from this year? Nobody is going to win with that team so why blame Bell? The owner was just trying to shake up the team to get a COUPLE of extra wins and get a few more butts in the seats in the stadium.

05-01-2002, 11:24 PM
i see your point, although there really is no reason for this this team to be sub .500, seriously the talent on this team is amazing. the rox are 5-0 with the new manager, so it proves to be a good move... so far..

i think the guys just needed a new face and some motivation from a different angle, a spark if you will

05-02-2002, 03:14 PM
<< i think the guys just needed a new face and some motivation from a different angle, a spark if you will >>

A new manager can be a good spark - they are typically VERY hyped and want to make the world a better place in 24 hours. Plus they are playing for the &quot;interm&quot; label to be removed.