Race to breed or breed to race?

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Not complimenting or criticizing Todd but what do you think the value of all his horses ( and I am including every multi-million dollar baby ) is compared to the value of " the next closest guy's " stable?

Considering all the expensive young horses Pletcher gets don't you find it a little amazing that between the Delta Jackpot and the 4 2YO Stakes at Aqueduct and Churchill Thanksgiving weekend that Todd had only one total entrant?

Anyhow, sorry Linny for deviating from your topic, and I agree with Todd's statement. Hell, if they win one TC race these days we never see them again....unless they're bums like Jazil or Giacomo.

You know, thats pretty funny, I heard Steve use the same line on the radio and didn't understand its relevance at all.
I think too many people have way too much Todd on their mind and time on their hands if thats the biggest knock you can raise about a guy.
He just ran 3 of them in the BC juvy, and none of those owners would be particularly interested in running back at delta, as all have garded stakes earnings sufficient that should they stay on the Crown road, that they will be ok.
In looking over the rest of the two year olds he has, who exactly fit the mode of a horse who should have been in that race?
I find it hysterical that the best folks can do now is find reasons to nitpic Todd as a fulltime job.
I find nothing "amazing" about it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

You know, thats pretty funny, I heard Steve use the same line on the radio and didn't understand its relevance at all.
I think too many people have way too much Todd on their mind and time on their hands if thats the biggest knock you can raise about a guy.
He just ran 3 of them in the BC juvy, and none of those owners would be particularly interested in running back at delta, as all have garded stakes earnings sufficient that should they stay on the Crown road, that they will be ok.
In looking over the rest of the two year olds he has, who exactly fit the mode of a horse who should have been in that race?
I find it hysterical that the best folks can do now is find reasons to nitpic Todd as a fulltime job.
I find nothing "amazing" about it.

The angst you displaying in defending Pletcher every time someone brings up a valid point concerning his stable is puzzling. It is as if the mere mention of his name brings assumptions to your mind that you feel a perverse need to defend him against. Yet, certainly in this case, you are as guilty as anyone of doing what you so regularly lambaste other posters for doing, and that is answering in a manner that implies you didn't even read the post.

First I responded to Rupert Pupkin's comments concerning the earnings of Todd's stable. While obviously earnings of $27 million are impressive, if one is going to compare them to the earnings of the second " best " stable, or really any stable, it is certainly relevent to discuss the numbers of horses involved in each relative instance. Perhaps in doing so Todd's numbers would be even more impressive, but without doing so, we are left in the comparative dark.

Next I veered slightly and expressed my amazement that Todd's stable has been virtually absent from the major 2YO stakes in this latter part of the year. Your response is an odd defense....he had three in the Juvenile and none of these owners would be interested in running at Delta. Yeah, and I say...." So what ". That was not my point. My point is that Todd received an ENORMOUS amount of well bred and high priced 2YOs for this year. God only knows what the actual number was. For him to be almost completely absent from these FIVE ( not just Delta as I referenced four other races ) is puzzling. I imagine Todd has quite a few owners that were NOT involved in the BC, and some of these have some high priced 2YOs in his barn, and I would imagine at least a few of these have wondered something similar to what I expressed. Perhaps if you weren't so busy scrambling to defend Todd against any perceived attack, and this is not an attack whatsoever but merely a reasonable question, then you would have at least had a response that stayed on topic.

[SniperSB23]

I think there are owners that would run a Triple Crown winner through the end of the year. Not many but there are some. The few with tons of money that care more about racing would pay the large insurance premiums and race the horse the rest of the year to make back those premiums and possibly more. The horse would still stand stud at the same time and in the unfortunate event that it broke down they would still cash a huge insurance check so in no way would they be risking the money that the horse is worth. Adding a BC Classic win to the resume would make the horse even more valuable at stud and even if he didn't win the Classic it wouldn't effect his status as a Triple Crown winner. The real question is whether any owner out there would ever bring the horse back at 4. I highly doubt it but I'd like to think there are at least a couple in the game for the right reasons. I sure hope the next TC winner isn't retired after the Belmont because the next TC winner running through the end of the year is the one chance horse racing has to showcase to the public that there is more to the racing calendar than just the TC.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I think there are owners that would run a Triple Crown winner through the end of the year. Not many but there are some. The few with tons of money that care more about racing would pay the large insurance premiums and race the horse the rest of the year to make back those premiums and possibly more. The horse would still stand stud at the same time and in the unfortunate event that it broke down they would still cash a huge insurance check so in no way would they be risking the money that the horse is worth. Adding a BC Classic win to the resume would make the horse even more valuable at stud and even if he didn't win the Classic it wouldn't effect his status as a Triple Crown winner. The real question is whether any owner out there would ever bring the horse back at 4. I highly doubt it but I'd like to think there are at least a couple in the game for the right reasons. I sure hope the next TC winner isn't retired after the Belmont because the next TC winner running through the end of the year is the one chance horse racing has to showcase to the public that there is more to the racing calendar than just the TC.

I am going to be honest, if I was an owner of a horse that won the TC, that horse would not be racing after the Belmont. I love this game but I have to be honest.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I am going to be honest, if I was an owner of a horse that won the TC, that horse would not be racing after the Belmont. I love this game but I have to be honest.

Why? What would you have to lose (assuming you are in the position to afford the insurance premiums for the balance of the year)? People act like you would be screwed financially if the horse broke down but that isn't the case at all. Plus retiring him in June isn't going to get him to stud any sooner. That's what I don't understand about the retirement thing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I think there are owners that would run a Triple Crown winner through the end of the year. Not many but there are some. The few with tons of money that care more about racing would pay the large insurance premiums and race the horse the rest of the year to make back those premiums and possibly more. The horse would still stand stud at the same time and in the unfortunate event that it broke down they would still cash a huge insurance check so in no way would they be risking the money that the horse is worth. Adding a BC Classic win to the resume would make the horse even more valuable at stud and even if he didn't win the Classic it wouldn't effect his status as a Triple Crown winner. The real question is whether any owner out there would ever bring the horse back at 4. I highly doubt it but I'd like to think there are at least a couple in the game for the right reasons. I sure hope the next TC winner isn't retired after the Belmont because the next TC winner running through the end of the year is the one chance horse racing has to showcase to the public that there is more to the racing calendar than just the TC.

I agree with everything you said.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The angst you displaying in defending Pletcher every time someone brings up a valid point concerning his stable is puzzling. It is as if the mere mention of his name brings assumptions to your mind that you feel a perverse need to defend him against. Yet, certainly in this case, you are as guilty as anyone of doing what you so regularly lambaste other posters for doing, and that is answering in a manner that implies you didn't even read the post.

First I responded to Rupert Pupkin's comments concerning the earnings of Todd's stable. While obviously earnings of $27 million are impressive, if one is going to compare them to the earnings of the second " best " stable, or really any stable, it is certainly relevent to discuss the numbers of horses involved in each relative instance. Perhaps in doing so Todd's numbers would be even more impressive, but without doing so, we are left in the comparative dark.

Next I veered slightly and expressed my amazement that Todd's stable has been virtually absent from the major 2YO stakes in this latter part of the year. Your response is an odd defense....he had three in the Juvenile and none of these owners would be interested in running at Delta. Yeah, and I say...." So what ". That was not my point. My point is that Todd received an ENORMOUS amount of well bred and high priced 2YOs for this year. God only knows what the actual number was. For him to be almost completely absent from these FIVE ( not just Delta as I referenced four other races ) is puzzling. I imagine Todd has quite a few owners that were NOT involved in the BC, and some of these have some high priced 2YOs in his barn, and I would imagine at least a few of these have wondered something similar to what I expressed. Perhaps if you weren't so busy scrambling to defend Todd against any perceived attack, and this is not an attack whatsoever but merely a reasonable question, then you would have at least had a response that stayed on topic.

BTW,
What I'm saying is that perhaps he didn't have one that fit the schedule or fitness level needed to perform in the race well.
He didn't have one in the Remsen or Demoiselle either, which was more suprising to me quite frankly.
My point is, if he jams one in there that doesn't belong, hes criticized for just running one thats no good. If he doesn't, hes failed as a trainer. Its a no win situation.
A lot of damn good trainers didn't have one in at Delta or the Remsen either.
Yet they aren't slammed.
I understand the criticisms against Pletcher, I really and truly do. And I also realize that this is very unhealthy for the long term of the game. Monopolies of any kind are dangerous for the sector they are in, whether its a department store or a horse trainer.
But if you read my last post, I understand WHY he gets horses, and I also think that in the future new trainers will challenge him.
One other thing, D Wayne suffered when guys like Todd and Hennig left him and took some clients with them. To this point I believe only George Weaver has left Todd and gone on his own, but at some point guys like Seth are gonna leave, and maybe take some with them. Its inevitable.
Frankel's dominance was criticized the same way not long ago, what did he win one year? 25 grade ones?
Believe it or not, Howard Johnson was the king back when he started up. But Marriott eventually blew by him and he said the reason that he did was because he had Howards mistakes and shortcomings to look at and avoid doing, while he could use the good things Howard did in his own business plan.
Nothing stays the same, it never does.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

BTW,
What I'm saying is that perhaps he didn't have one that fit the schedule or fitness level needed to perform in the race well.
He didn't have one in the Remsen or Demoiselle either, which was more suprising to me quite frankly.
My point is, if he jams one in there that doesn't belong, hes criticized for just running one thats no good. If he doesn't, hes failed as a trainer. Its a no win situation.
A lot of damn good trainers didn't have one in at Delta or the Remsen either.
Yet they aren't slammed.
I understand the criticisms against Pletcher, I really and truly do. And I also realize that this is very unhealthy for the long term of the game. Monopolies of any kind are dangerous for the sector they are in, whether its a department store or a horse trainer.
But if you read my last post, I understand WHY he gets horses, and I also think that in the future new trainers will challenge him.
One other thing, D Wayne suffered when guys like Todd and Hennig left him and took some clients with them. To this point I believe only George Weaver has left Todd and gone on his own, but at some point guys like Seth are gonna leave, and maybe take some with them. Its inevitable.
Frankel's dominance was criticized the same way not long ago, what did he win one year? 25 grade ones?
Believe it or not, Howard Johnson was the king back when he started up. But Marriott eventually blew by him and he said the reason that he did was because he had Howards mistakes and shortcomings to look at and avoid doing, while he could use the good things Howard did in his own business plan.
Nothing stays the same, it never does.

Ummmm, my initial post CLEARLY mentioned " Aqueduct ", and thus the Remsen and Demoiselle, and the fact that none of the races I mentioned " fit
the schedule " is what's puzzling as certainly when the season began I imagine Todd had penciled himself in, so to speak, as being an obvious participant in ALL these races.

I imagine Todd will survive the tsunami when " guys like Seth " leave ( that's assistant trainer Seth Benzal for those of you, ya know, not " in the know " ).

You say a lot about Pletcher, and it's obvious you adore him, which is fine, but that doesn't make ALL of it true. He is, however, a fine trainer who runs an immensely impressive operation.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Ummmm, my initial post CLEARLY mentioned " Aqueduct ", and thus the Remsen and Demoiselle, and the fact that none of the races I mentioned " fit
the schedule " is what's puzzling as certainly when the season began I imagine Todd had penciled himself in, so to speak, as being an obvious participant in ALL these races.

I imagine Todd will survive the tsunami when " guys like Seth " leave ( that's assistant trainer Seth Benzal for those of you, ya know, not " in the know " ).

You say a lot about Pletcher, and it's obvious you adore him, which is fine, but that doesn't make ALL of it true. He is, however, a fine trainer who runs an immensely impressive operation.

I don't adore him, I admire him and what hes done and how he does it.
As someone in the business, I think thats normal.
I met him when he had just gone on his own, Ramsey was the 2nd guy to give him horses after he went public. Hes only one friggin year older than I am.
Hes a total pro, as a trainer and as a person. He conducts himself at the highest level most of the time, and hes incorporated business methods into the horse business.
I've also never heard of anyone who has anything bad to say about him as far as business dealings or people dealings, as you know at the racetrack this is very rare.
I think anyone in the business wants to succeed like he has.

By the way BTW, a lotta people bash Beyer and Crist and I admire them just as much. They took their passion to a new level, and got rich doing so.
I fail to see the difference.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

By the way BTW, a lotta people bash Beyer and Crist and I admire them just as much. They took their passion to a new level, and got rich doing so.
I fail to see the difference.

The difference is that every time someone even discusses a situation involving Pletcher you feel a need to tell everyone how great YOU think he is and list all the attributes YOU think he has......instead of actually addressing the issue at hand.

For example, if someone says " Crist is shilling for NYRA ", my response will stick to that silly comment and not include that he loves his wonderful wife and dogs. If someone says " Beyer makes up his numbers " I don't include that he bikes 25 miles a day, also loves his wife dearly, and can finish any crossword puzzle in a matter of minutes, I merely address the issue brought up.

So far I haven't noticed a lot of people saying slanderous accusations concerning Todd, and if they did it should not be tolerated on this site, but I have seen an enormous amount of defensiveness from you virtually everytime his name is brought up. One MIGHT think you have some odd need to convince yourself.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by oracle80

I don't adore him, I admire him and what hes done and how he does it.
As someone in the business, I think thats normal.
I met him when he had just gone on his own, Ramsey was the 2nd guy to give him horses after he went public. Hes only one friggin year older than I am.
Hes a total pro, as a trainer and as a person. He conducts himself at the highest level most of the time, and hes incorporated business methods into the horse business.
I've also never heard of anyone who has anything bad to say about him as far as business dealings or people dealings, as you know at the racetrack this is very rare.
I think anyone in the business wants to succeed like he has.

I know him Mike....and you know that....so I don't know what you are trying to prove here. He's done a remarkable job, we all know that, and if we didn't you have reminded us many times. None of this detracts from some of the issues raised and every time someone raises one there is NOT a need for another one of your posts praising how wonderful he is in your eyes. It is irrelevent.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I know him Mike....and you know that....so I don't know what you are trying to prove here. He's done a remarkable job, we all know that, and if we didn't you have reminded us many times. None of this detracts from some of the issues raised and every time someone raises one there is NOT a need for another one of your posts praising how wonderful he is in your eyes. It is irrelevent.

Some could say your defense of Beyer is the same.