Rockies Payroll Nears Club Record

April 2, 2009 | 11:35 am | 35  

In the off-season the Rockies sent Matt Holliday, the second-highest paid player on the team a year ago, to Oakland for a package of players, and saw closer Brian Fuentes, the fourth-highest paid player on the team a year ago, leave as a free agent.
And the doomsayers had a field day, moaning about the low-budget team slashing salary.
The 2009 season opens on Monday and even without Holliday and Fuentes, the Rockies will have a team payroll that challenges the largest in franchise history, according to an analysis of information filed with the Major League Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball.
With the idea that Juan Morillo will earn the final spot on the roster, the Rockies are looking at a payroll of $77,203,849 for their 25-man active roster plus pitchers Jeff Francis and Taylor Buchholz on the disabled list.
That is nearly a $7 million increase from a year ago, and up nearly $23 million from 2007, when the Rockies advanced to the World Series for the first time in franchise history. It also is only $280,151 shy of the franchise Opening day record of $77,484,000 in 2001, the year they added left-handed free agent pitchers Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle.
Morillo has a big-league salary of $401,000 so if the Rockies were to bring in a pitcher from outside the organization or decide to keep Matt Belisle instead of Morillo the Opening Day figure could become the largest in franchise history.
Team’s payrolls can be figured in various manners, but this annual survey is based off the base salary for the players on the active roster and disabled list, along with pro-rated portions of their signing bonuses and buyouts on option years.
The Rockies do get $875,000 in help from the Chicago Cubs, which they were given to help defray the addition of Jason Marquis and his $9.875 million salary in exchange for reliever Luis Vizcaino, who is owed $4 million for 2009.
While the Rockies did subtract Holliday and Fuentes, they added Marquis at $9.875 million and reliever Huston Street at $4.5 million. What’s more, the simple return of 18 players from the Opening Day roster of a year ago resulted in $13,307,500 in salary increases, led by raises of $4.45 million for right-handed pitcher Aaron Cook and $2.6625 million for third baseman Garrett Atkins.
First baseman Todd Helton, whose salary came out at $17,018,182, is the highest paid player on the team for the fifth consecutive year. Larry Walker had been No. 1 the eight year years prior to Helton, and nine of the 10. Billy Swift was the team leader in 1996, Andres Galarraga in 1994, and Charlie Hayes in 1993.
Fourteen of the 27 players included in this year’s survey earn at least $1 million, including four of the five members of the rotation – Cook, Marquis, Jorge De La Rosa ($2 million) and Ubaldo Jimenez ($1 million). Franklin Morales will earn $402,000 as the big-league portion of his contract.
At the other extreme, three of the four full-time outfielders on the roster will earn $415,000 or less. While Brad Hawpe’s salary is $5.667 million, Ryan Spilborghs will earn $415,000, Seth Smith $403,000 and Dexter Fowler $401,000.
The Rockies expected Opening Day lineup has a combined salary of $43,424,182, which is higher than the team payroll was as recently as 2006 ($41,233,000), and dwarfs the original Opening Day payroll of $8.925,000 for 1993.
The Rockies are one of a handful of teams that has a strict pay scale for players who are not eligible for arbitration, and it caps at $415,000 this year, which is what Spilborghs, Jeff Baker and Chris Iannetta will make. The Rockies have 10 pre-arbitration eligible players on their roster.


  • mondogarage | April 2, 2009 | 11:46 am

    But, but, but, but, but…..the Monforts are CHEEEP! And Hurdle’s a BUM!!!!!

    Man, I truly hope the rubes who comment over on the Denver Post site give your column here a read today. Because the truth is, this club is in fact spending within it’s capabilities, and is doing what they can to put a good product on the field. I believe to this day if Holliday wasn’t insisting on a six year full no trade clause, he’d be on the roster making $18m a year right now.

    And yet, I feel the Rockies will be a better team in 2009 than in 2008.

  • antonio | April 2, 2009 | 1:03 pm

    nevermind that the 77 million spent in ’01 would have the same buying power as 92 million spent this year, if you bothered to, you know, adjust for inflation.

    but yeah, only ‘rubes’ cant see the obvious truth that the monforts are clearly committed to competing for the world series, as best they can.

    some of us rubes also wonder why the ownership were so quick to remind us of the perils of the hampton/neagle contracts when it came time to pay holliday his actual market value, but never bring up the profits generated in year one when 4.5 million fans paid to see a club with an 8 million dollar payroll.

  • David Martin | April 2, 2009 | 1:23 pm

    I realize that with inflation the 2001 team is far ahead as far as payroll goes…I am, however, sick of hearing about how incompetent Dan O’Dowd is, how terrible Clint Hurdle is, and how the ownership should just sell because of the Matt Holliday issue.

    Come on! The Rockies offered him $18 million per year. Can you fault a team for not wanting to give someone a six year deal? What if he gets hurt and never plays again? We are then in the same situation as we were with Hampton and Neagle. It is just plain irresponsible to pay someone that much money when you don’t have the financial firepower that the Yankees do. They have a huge TV deal and the price to go to a game is pure insanity. I believe that the Rockies ticket prices are 26th highest in the league or something like that, so quit whining, the Rockies have some great talent this year and should put up a fight in the N.L. West.

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 1:33 pm

    Well Tracy, according to a Forbes Magazine article I sent you last year, the Rockies revenue for 2006 was $151 million. I truly doubt that their revenue has gone down considering they’ve been to the World Series in 2007. So, how do the Rockies spend the remaining part of their revenue? I’d love to read an article about that.

  • Jeff | April 2, 2009 | 1:51 pm

    I’m not a big fan of the Monforts, nor am I defending them, but I’m sure running a major league organization is a very expensive venture. Think of all the expenses there are, besides the Major League payroll. Scouting, travel and the front office are just a few of the many other things they must include in the budget.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 1:52 pm

    Don, just curious the figures Forbes uses, where do they come from? Forbes has never been able to answer that question, and it has had some numbers concerning scouting and player development that aren’t even close to facts that are known, much less expenditures that can’t be verified.
    I’m not questioning that the Monforts are trying to make a profit, but then what business isn’t? I always get a kick out of media complaining that teams don’t spend what it takes to be the best possible, and the they are cutting staff, making hirings based off who is cheaper or in other cases eliminating newspapers. To this day, I have a hard time understanding why a quality athletic team should be more important to society than a quality news gathering agency. That’s just me, and that’s something that has bothered me for several decades.

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 3:07 pm

    First to Tracy, I feel like its a crying shame that we’ve lost our RM News which you’ve been an important part of to me. It seems to me that the Denver newspaper agency [or whatever its name is] has been a part owner in the Rockies for several years and has profited each year when the bottom line was figured out from the Rockies standpoint.

    The article i referred to was published in the Denver Post on April 20, 1977 and written by the Associated Press. The title is “Rockies’ value rising, reports Forbes; Yankees still on top” and i’m sure you can find it or let me know and i’ll send you a hard copy of it. I think each year Forbes runs an article similar to this one, although i’ve never gone looking for an actual copy…..hope i can find one for myself this year.

    Here is a portion of the AP article in the Denver Post:…….’The magazine defended its article. “Forbes compiles its annual valuations of Major League Baseball franchises based on information obtained from team executives, sports bankers, public documents and other sources believed to be reliable,” spokeswoman Elizabeth Wasden said. “We stand by our figures, and the content published.”

    I do agree with you, Tracy, that making a profit is a good thing. In fact, i believe that the Monfort’s and the Rockies have made a handsome profit year after year after year. We’ve been sold the idea that the team would step up when their home grown talent shows they are worthy. One of your articles today shows numerous places where they have done multi-year contracts with more and more players, so in coming years, their team salaries will continue to go up. I applaud them for that. On the other hand, Holliday wanted a no-trade clause and 6 years, plus he wasn’t going to break the Monfort’s bank to stay. He WANTED to stay here in Colorado. I believe the Monfort’s could have said to the public, we realize that the long term commitments we made to pitchers Hampton and Neagle were errors……and on the other hand, we look on Matt Holliday as a much better investment of our resources…..there’s my opinion.

    To Jeff and Tracy, i find it hard to believe that scouting, travel, and front office, and the other expenses of the operation come anywhere close to the amount spent on salaries. I’m hoping you can provide more information on this……i really would like to know.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 3:35 pm

    Don, you say that Holliday wasn’t going to break the bank to stay. What do you base that on? His agent said he wanted a Texieira type contract, seven years, $160 million.
    By the way, you do know that His agent never did counter the Rockies offer and ask for a no-trade. Also if he wanted to stay in Colorado why did the agent never once put a proposal on the table and tell the Rockies Holliday would stay if that met that request?

    I have now seen five different reasons for Holliday’s departure:
    1. Agent said not enough money
    2. Holliday said he didn’t want to have to move his family and he wanted security.
    3. Not enough years.
    4. No no-trade.
    5. Most recently, he wanted to be with a team that has a chance to win, which is an indictment of not only the Rockies ownership and front office but also his former teammates, who by inference, are not good enough to win in his mind or he would have wanted to stay.

    The bottom line is the day Holliday hired Boras it was a message that he was going to test the free agent market. That is what Boras specializes in. That’s no knock on Boras. It’s just a long-range pattern that has developed.

    As I have said before and I will say again, why can’t both sides be adult. The Rockies made a decision and they need to move on. Holliday made a decision and he needs to move on. They both exercised what is their right.

    As for Forbes, too many times their dollars have been questioned and other than to say they stand by the numbers never once have they been able to provide any proof on the informaiton that claim.

    I have seen too many errors over the years in the Forbes reporting to get too carried away.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 3:37 pm

    Don, by the way, I would guesstimate that player development and scouting, alone, cost the Rockies roughly $25 million to $30 million annually including salaries, travel, and signing bonuses.

    As far as the business side, I have no idea.

  • antonio | April 2, 2009 | 4:20 pm

    i believe the only team that actually has had to report their profits, due to the legal obligations of their stadium lease, is the seattle mariners. with a 113 million dollar payroll (resulting in only 88 wins) they still cleared 17 million dollars in profit as an organization in 2007. i’m not sure if the 2008 numbers have been released.

    the idea that the monforts are at all constrained to their self-imposed salary cap by any other motive than lining their own pockets at the expense of the fans is ludicrous.

    furthermore, the holliday departure does not need to be rehashed time and again as the sole evidence of “frugality” on the part of our ownership. for example, passing over evan longoria in the ’06 draft to select reynolds was based solely on “signablity” and not talent. can anyone really suggest with a straight-face that the monforts didnt have the 3 million dollars it wouldve taken to sign the better player?

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 4:32 pm

    So, Forbes is not forthcoming enough, eh? And when will the Rockies be forthcoming on their real costs and revenues of running their business? Sounds like a stalemate. I bet you could get information from the Denver newspaper agency with the details. Are you willing to go public with the information? If your estimate of up to $30 million is accurate, that leaves another $44 million to account for from the $151 million. Keep in mind, the amount of profit hasn’t been a one year deal. They were raking in much more in earlier years compared to player’s salaries of recent years. If you don’t care for Forbes figures for revenues, what do you believe their revenues were?

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 4:42 pm

    Don, I don’t know and I was never privy to any information from Denver Newspaper Agency. I didn’t work for the DNA. Heck, I wasn’t privy to any info from the Roicky Mountain News, either.

    Hey, I am not saying the ownership isn’t making money. I will say thogh the other $44 million does have to cover the business side of things, rent, upkeep and mainteance, grounds crew, etc. I am certainly not trying to plead a case of poverty for the owners of any team.

    I just don’t know that there has been a recent time when a legitimate player was available and the hands were tied.

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 4:44 pm

    Antonio, your point about SIGNABILITY has been a LONG TERM ISSUE. Your example of Longoria is just one of many years of trying to get by on the CHEAP by the owners. by the way, i like your politically correct good word…..frugality…..wonder if Dick and Charlie would agree with us……lol?

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 4:45 pm

    Antonio, sounds like revisionist history. The decision to pass on Longoria was made not over signability. In fact they had very good conversations with Longoria, whose agent also represents Tulo, and there was not going to be a problem in that area.
    The decision was based on the fact there was a glut of infielders and the focus in recent years had been on hitters and a decision was made to pursue pitching. The one guy whose contract demands got in the way was Andrew Miller, but that was it, and for the four-year, $10 million he received, I wouldn’t say he has overwhelmed anyone.
    Longoria has turned out great, but to be honest, with Atkins at third base, do you think he would have had the opportunity in Colorado he received in Tampa?
    That’s no knock on Longoria, but when someone has had the success like Atkins, moving him to make room for someone else is a challenge. Ask Ian Stewart. And remember not only did the Rockies have Atkins and Stewart, but also Baker so third base was an area where they had quality and depth.

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 4:48 pm

    So Tracy, if money wasn’t the issue with Beimel, what was it? He didn’t give up any HR’s in 2008 and he was effective, wasn’t he? What would have been wrong with a 2 year deal with him? The Rockies have proved if things don’t work out with a reliever with a 2 year deal, he can be traded….ie. Viscaino to the cubs

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 4:48 pm

    Don, also remember when we talk the Opening Day slaary that is the Opening Day salary. That doesn’t include incentives or any players who are added later in the year. Also other than the young players — pre arbitration guys — remember thier full contract is guaranteed once they are on the active roster during the season so even if they are released or sent to minors or put on disasbled list the team is obligated for the full salary. And don’t forget players hwo might be added during the course of the year. Also remember the cost of insurance plans and workman’s comp and the other side benefits that an employer must pay.
    Again, I am not saying that would deny the Rockies a profit but it’s not as simple as taking income and subtracting Opening Day payroll.

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 5:01 pm

    Tracy, i agree with you that the bottom line can’t be written toooooo simply. yes, there are numerous costs involved and even though i didnt write about additional salaries that are taken on, i realize that they exist.

    How about this……a list of the various expense items with an amount next to each item? Profit is a good motive, if and when the resources are poured back into the product, AFTER the Monfort’s have taken their profit. Guess there is a pretty big difference of opinion on what portion of their revenues should be invested, as well as, profit.

    Tracy, you’re right about Longoria being a 3B man. Still, Antonio’s point about signability, especially on pitchers has been disappointing.

  • Don | April 2, 2009 | 5:12 pm

    Tracy, i still want you to answer my post about Beimel at 4:48 pm. thanks, in advance

  • antonio | April 2, 2009 | 5:25 pm


    i’ll concede to your more intimate knowledge of the particulars of the ’06 draft- though it worries me that if they were intent on drafting a pitcher, that would mean they thought more highly of reynolds than brandon morrow, andrew miller, kershaw, lincecum, and scherzer.

    anyway, i probably shouldve avoided this particular example anyway because its only allowed us to ignore the seattle mariners information i wanted to add to the debate. with nearly identical attendance numbers in 2007, the mariners made 17 million dollars in profits while paying 60 million dollars more in salaries than did the rockies that season.

    whether or not it would be a good idea, for example, to resign holliday to a max contract based on his expected performance is conceivably debatable. the prevailing notion that the monforts could not afford this contract is not however, nor is it reasonable to laud them for spending 77 million dollars on payroll in 2009 while labeling critics of the ownership as “moaning” “doomsayers.”

    (as an aside, i appreciate both your work here and your willingness to converse with us fans- and hope that my tone does not come off as too contentious.)

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 5:26 pm

    I did answer the Beimel question. This is the second or third time in the last five days I have answered it. Sorry but there’s not much more that I can offer other than (1) he was seeking two years at between $2 and $3 million a year and (2) agent indicated no interest in coming to the Rockies.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 5:46 pm

    Bottom line is in a year where most of us are making cutbacks in our spending — in my situation there aren’t a lot options, if you know what I mean — they did raise Opening Day payroll by roughtly 10 per cent from a year ago.

    As for the draft, signability has not been an issue since ownership called original general manager Bob Gebhard on the carpter for that and told original scouting director Pat Daugherty to sign players based off physical ability, not signability. That was the draft in which, among other things, the Rockies gave Matt Holliday the largest bonus ever for a seventh round pick, just like Dexter Fowler’s bonus was the largest ever for his round.

    As for the pitchers you bring up, time will tell. There were nine teams that shied away from Lincecum before the Giants were wise enough to take him. Scherzer had 10 temas pass on him. Morrow went fifth overall and if his forearm holds up he could be special. Six teams passed oon Kershaw. What about the Rockies passing on Brad Lincoln, who went fourth? What about the Royals taking Luke Hochevar first overall?
    If you get into second-guessing draft picks you will drive yourself nuts. Can you explain to me why Tulowitzki slipped to seventh in the 2005 draft? More than that, how did Brad Hawpe go in the 11th round in 2000? Why did Holliday go in the seventh round? Why did every team in baseball pass on Fowler 11 times in his draft? How was Roger Clemens the No. 3 starter on his college team?
    It reminds me of Doug Melvin taking credit for drafting Mike Mussina, and when he interviewed for the Texas GM job, he belittled another candidate, Sandy Johnson, for taking a left-hander from Creighton named Dan Smith. Of course he didn’t mention that he had a tantrum when the Rangers took Smith and he was, in his words, “stuck with Mussina.” How sold was he on Smith, who he later belittled? So sold that he had a contract agreed to, which wound up being a stumbling block for the Rangers because Melvin had agreed to give Smith money over slot.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 5:50 pm

    Don when you talk about pitchers and signability, did you notice the Rockies gave Reynolds $3.25 million to sign. Longoria received $3 million, Morrow received $2.45 million, Kershaw received $2.3 million. Lincecum received $2.025 million. Scherzer sat out a full year before finally getting a big-league package from Arizona. Also while Miller received a four-year big-league deal, which the Jeff Baker scenario should show is not a wise idea, his actual signing bonus was $3.550 million. Of the players named, only Miller received a bigger signing bonus than what the Rockies paid Reynolds, and that was only $250,000 more than Reynolds received.
    Question the judgment if you want, but the finances don’t seem to fit the argument. In questioning the judgment, though, remember this is the same scouting department that came up with Iannetta, Barmes, Tulowitzki, Atkins, Hawpe, Stewart, Smith, Fowler, Spilborghs, and Francis, for a few.

  • antonio | April 2, 2009 | 5:57 pm

    in all honesty then, tracy, would you say that the rockies ownership are doing their best to win a world series, given their market constraints?

    youve stated above that there is at least some motivation on their part to generate profits- would you rate their desire to maximize profits as above or below normal compared to other teams?

    we may never know because they will probably never have to open their books the way the mariners do- but i am truly of the opinion that the monforts are more than willing to trot out a mediocre team year after year to maximize their own take.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 6:18 pm

    I don’t think they want to trot out a mediocre team. I honestly think they want to win because I think from an ego standpoint there is a lot more joy when you go to the country club and people tell you how great you are instead of whisper about how cheap you are.

    I think it boils down to decision making and stability. I think the organization is in pretty good shape now and has been for about three years but it took a long time to clean up the original mess, created in part by trying to
    patch holes without having a foundation and with handing out ill-advised contracts.

    Think about this: in the history of baseball there have been two World Champions with a payroll of $100 million — the last two Boston teams. My point is money is great but money doesn’t mean success.

    Here are some numbers to consider:
    Tampa Bay 2008, 29th in payroll
    Colorado 2007, 25th in payroll
    St. Louis 2006, 11th in payroll and Detroit 14th.
    The point is the importance is in the decision-making.

  • antonio | April 2, 2009 | 6:54 pm

    interesting, and thanks for all the replies today tracy. i agree that decision making is of supreme importance when putting together a ballclub, and that money alone will not bring you a championship.

    yet it seems as though, with the rockies especially given our smaller market, lack of money is often given as justification for questionable decisions. the obvious example is with matt holliday.

    so lets put aside whether you think matt would be worth the money he wanted-> point blank: do you think the monforts could have afforded to give holliday 7/$160 and still make a profit?

  • TexasSteve | April 2, 2009 | 7:06 pm

    Amen to your last post, Tracy. I believe the Monforts and the front office are trying to build a winning franchise within a reasonable and sound financial structure. We’ve seen glimpses of that with the World Series appearance of 2007 and a core of home-grown talent. I look forward to seeing this strategy continue to reward the Rockie faithful.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 7:34 pm

    Antonio, I don’t feel anybody is worth $160 million for seven years. Period. I feel contracts like that hamstring a franchise. Not getting into who the player is. I don’t believe you should tie yourslef up that long-term to anybody because it limits your flexibility.

  • antonio | April 2, 2009 | 7:54 pm


    while that is a totally valid opinion, im really more interested in whether you think they *can* afford those types of contracts, and/or team-wide salary increases in general- not whether they should or not. we may be beating a dead horse at this point, but your article began by seemingly praising the rox for spending 77 million dollars on payroll this year. i personally believe, given the seattle mariners comparison, that they could be spending way way more than that- and are simply using this “small market” excuse to line their pockets.

    the rockies financial flexibility is taken for granted to be limited, without any real concrete evidence that their supposedly minimal profits are keeping them from spending more money to improve the team. i guess im just curious as to why we, as fans, should accept this explanation.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 8:05 pm

    Antonio the article did not praise anyone. I pointed out that there was not a payroll slashing as some had suggested there would be. That isn’t really praise as much as pointing out that the reality of the matter is the payroll is up 10 percent from a year ago and less than $300,000 behind the largest payroll ever. Is that reason to celebrate? We’ll know in October.
    I don’t think anybody shyould spend that on any player.
    Right now the Rockies, under formulas used to figure payrolls, have Helton at more than $17 million. They could probably afford another one but I wouldn’t recommend it if I was the decision maker.
    The Mariners are in a total mess right now so the Mariners spending has not created reason for celebration in the last four, five years, has it?

  • Ava | April 2, 2009 | 8:47 pm

    Great read and great answers Tracy, I learned alot, thanks. I for one never thought of the owners as cheap, there’s alot more to owning and operating a baseball team than some people think. I do want to ask you though, is it really the Montforts obligation to put some kind of financial statement out there for the public as some people might want? Unless you’re some kind of stockholder or shareholder or part owner or something, I wouldn’t think it’s necessary.

  • Tracy Ringolsby | April 2, 2009 | 9:15 pm

    Very few private businesses provide such information.

  • Ava | April 2, 2009 | 10:15 pm

    Thank you. I pretty much knew that. I just don’t understand why some fans think it’s their right to know how every last penny is spent and where it goes as long as the owner’s do right by the players and their fans, and I have no reason to think they haven’t.

  • antonio | April 3, 2009 | 8:33 am


    thanks again for your responses, they have been very instructive. for example, i find it very interesting that the rockies have increased their player salaries by 10% this year, and you say they *could* add another player at 17 million per if they wanted and still turn a profit. if the rockies did add 17 million more to their payroll, it would represent a 35% total increase on player salaries from the opening day payroll from last year. this type of context was certainly lacking when the holliday deal was being public debated in the media.

    instead of fans wondering whether the rockies *should* increase their payroll, it has been generally assumed that they never *could*. this only has served to shield the ownership from proper scrutiny of their decisions, where you get people like Ava saying “I have no reason to think they haven’t” (done right by the fans.)

    using the mariners again as a team in a comparable market with comparable attendance figures that earned 17.8 million dollars in profit while paying 113 million in player salaries, there is every reason to believe that the rockies could similarly expand their own payroll, and truly do right by the fans. yet when confronted with this information, tracy’s response has essentially been that money doesnt equal success.

    while that is certainly true- it only represents analysis of whether the rockies *should*, and not whether they *could* spend more. i wonder if our fans knew how much the monforts *could* pay to keep our favorite players like holliday, if there would be so much good will and benefit of the doubt handed out.

  • Doc | April 3, 2009 | 5:21 pm

    Great stuff. Thanks everyone. Wish I’d been online when you were having your debate a day an a half ago. I think throwing money at players just because it’s there sets a terrible precedent. Somehow, fans think that a player they recognize by name must be a far superior player than the ones they see on their team. Sounds like fantasy league to me. I’m thinking Beimel had some “other” issues besides his excessive contract demands; otherwise I doubt he’d been unemployed for as long as he was.

  • Ava | April 4, 2009 | 12:10 am

    Antonio, please leave me out of it. They did offer Holliday 18m a year, I assume because they did have it. If that is what the discussion is about, I’ve lost track. I don’t believe I’ve been mislead in any way. In my humble opinion, I think the Montforts are good businessmen. They’ve put a good product on the field, raised payroll, signed arbitration eligible players, signed some players to decent contracts, have good scouting and development. When you operate a business and make a profit I think you’re doing alright. I recently read about Tom Hicks who is in default of a loan or loans, I’m not sure exactly, and is trying to get some investors and wants to lower the Ranger’s payroll next year to about 50M. So, the Rockies to me are in pretty good shape compared to some other teams.