Big Brown has Quarter Crack

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't understand why anyone thinks he is so valuable a prospect. he's by boundary for crying out loud. quick, name 5 good boundaries, without looking up his progeny records...besides big brown of course. i can think of ONE, pomeroy.

also, it's a rotten crop, and he just happens to be a bit faster than the other slow horses.
eight belles was thought by many to not be a derby horse, wouldn't be able to get 10f, and she ran closer to big brown than any of his other competition ever had.

i can't believe they're going nuts over this horse, or that he's worth 100k.

I agree 100%. But the problem is the breeding business appears to have serious short-term memory. Four years down the road, if Big Brown is a flop at stud (which he almost certainly will be), the douchebag breeders will be so occupied with clamoring for the latest Derby winner, they'll forget all about how much they inflated Big Brown's prospects. Plus, as long as people keep paying exorbitant amounts for yearlings and two-year-olds, the breeders will be heartened to keep overvaluing horses.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I agree 100%. But the problem is the breeding business appears to have serious short-term memory. Four years down the road, if Big Brown is a flop at stud (which he almost certainly will be), the douchebag breeders will be so occupied with clamoring for the latest Derby winner, they'll forget all about how much they inflated Big Brown's prospects. Plus, as long as people keep paying exorbitant amounts for yearlings and two-year-olds, the breeders will be heartened to keep overvaluing horses.

What people seem to forget is that racetrack success doesnt always translate into stallion success. It is one of the things that the 'medication is ruining the breed' types seem to forget. Just look at the 70's. Secretariat, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid who all rank in the top 20 all time (maybe better) all were disappointments at stud as were Alysheba, Easy Goer (though he didnt get much of a chance), Spend a Buck and Devils Bag in the 80's and Skip Away and Formal Gold among others in the 90's. None ever sired a horse close to themselves. Medication had nothing to do with it either. Most stallions are failures, plain and simple. The real problems started when people started to pay top dollar to breed to unproven stallions versus proven ones. By paying big bucks for a few years before we know what they got, you are allowing the breeders to pay huge money and escape with their hides. Surely Three Chimneys thinks that they will have enough support at a high level to pay the money they did for BB but I am skeptical of what people will feel like in a year from now.

[Danzig]

a lot of people are going after first year stallions, looking to get that instant bang for their buck. get in, get out, make some money before the stallion proves to be in the 90% of stallions who won't make it, rather than in the 10% that do. a lot of established sires are having a hard time getting a full book. makes no sense, but everyone is looking for a show horse, not a race horse.

i'm thinking big brown will turn out like real quiet or monarchos.

big brown is case clays first big buy since taking over as president of three chimneys. i think ieah got the better end of this deal by a mile.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Danzig

big brown is case clays first big buy since taking over as president of three chimneys. i think ieah got the better end of this deal by a mile.

IEAH didn't actually get all that much money... The deal "places his value at $50 million".. which means Three Chimneys may have paid just $10 million for 20%.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Kasept

IEAH didn't actually get all that much money... The deal "places his value at $50 million".. which means Three Chimneys may have paid just $10 million for 20%.

....or $60 million for Big Brown and an overhyped IEAH runner to be named later......

[Danzig]

now, i know they insured the horse for 50mill.
no details were given on the stud deal, other than clay saying it's for breeding rights only. so are they basing the stud deal on the amount of insurance purchased?
how does that work when they say they've only purchased the breeding rights, rather than just an outright purchase of the horse?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so are they basing the stud deal on the amount of insurance purchased?

The deal "places his value at $50 million".. which means Three Chimneys [may have] paid just $10 million for 20%.

Originally Posted by Danzig

how does that work when they say they've only purchased the breeding rights, rather than just an outright purchase of the horse?

They paid for a percentage of the horse to secure the rights to stand him at their farm after his racing career.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Danzig

now, i know they insured the horse for 50mill.
no details were given on the stud deal, other than clay saying it's for breeding rights only. so are they basing the stud deal on the amount of insurance purchased?
how does that work when they say they've only purchased the breeding rights, rather than just an outright purchase of the horse?

It is strictly a breeding rights deal and each deal takes on a life of it's own. The insurance amount has nothing to do with it. The amount of the insurance and the rumored "value" has no correlation, and if it's accurate, it's just coincidence.

Also, allegedly, Clay is not known for putting up large sums of his own money. The Smarty Jones deal was structured this way, and there was an "anchor" partner in the deal. As far as the breeding rights -- it could be anything -- "rights" to stand the horse, securing the horse, syndication, and so on. In this case, I would guess there might be an "anchor" partner who provides "bridge financing" until they can sell shares; although from what I hear, the talk of shares is not a hot topic at this point. Maybe that will change, maybe not. On the other hand, the dollars used to secure the horse could be more long term, until shares are sold, seasons, etc. Who knows how much money was used and paid.

Eric

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What people seem to forget is that racetrack success doesnt always translate into stallion success. It is one of the things that the 'medication is ruining the breed' types seem to forget. Just look at the 70's. Secretariat, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid who all rank in the top 20 all time (maybe better) all were disappointments at stud .

I'm tired of hearing this. Secretariat was a darn good stallion; he sired 1) a Horse of the Year (Lady's Secret) 2) a Preakness/Belmont winner (Risen Star) 3) a Travers/Hopeful/Vosburg winner (General Assembly), 4) a Melbourne Cup winner (Kingston Rule), plus a good number of graded/group winners. As this recital indicates, Big Red was a stamina sire, however during his early stud career Claibourne and partners mated him as though he were a typical Bold Ruler son, with stamina mares. Only after his first 2yos got to the track did they realize their mistake and start to give him mares with a bit more speed (like Great Lady M.).

Affirmed was never expected to excell at stud by the Blood Grass elite breeders; he was by Exclusive Native, who was okay but not top drawer, while the damside was distinctly blue-collar. He was never given the top level mares, yet he still sired 1) a multiple US champion (Flawlessly), 2) a Canadian Triple Crown winner (Peteski), 3) classic winners (Trusted Partner, Bint Pasha), and numerous group/graded winners, including everyone's favorite, The Tin Dude. He, too, tended to produce horses who didn't excell at 2 on dirt tracks - most were better at 3 or older and on turf. That was a truly strange breeding result - a horse who never ran on turf and whose parents and grandparents never ran on turf should become an excellent sire of turf horses. Who can figure that one out?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

I'm tired of hearing this. Secretariat was a darn good stallion;

If you bred his book of mares to Cozar - he would be a very accomplished stallion.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If you bred his book of mares to Cozar - he would be a very accomplished stallion.

Not certain what this means, but the 'elite' mares he received were, many of them, the wrong mares for this particular stallion. Just as Winning Colors was sent to stallions who made the most economic sense rather than to the stallions that would suit her best (and may have been totally non-commercial). An example - After Cee's Song produced 4 SWs including a Horse of the Year with Cee's Tizzy, proving this is a dynamite cross, a genetic goldmine, her owners' heirs sent her to Storm Cat repreatedly and got 2 minor winners, one SP, and one unraced. By most measures Storm Cat is a better stallion than Cee's Tizzy, BUT not for this particular mare.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

An example - After Cee's Song produced 4 SWs including a Horse of the Year with Cee's Tizzy, proving this is a dynamite cross, a genetic goldmine, her owners' heirs sent her to Storm Cat repreatedly and got 2 minor winners, one SP, and one unraced. By most measures Storm Cat is a better stallion than Cee's Tizzy, BUT not for this particular mare.

I would have to think mating Cee's Song with Cee's Tizzy was hardly some decision based upon any "dynamite cross" that had the look of a possible genetic goldmine - It probably had everything to do with the fact that the two horses raced for the same owners.

Storm Cat didn't get a piece of Cee's Song until she already had like 10 or 11 foals.

[Slewbopper]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

If you bred his book of mares to Cozar - he would be a very accomplished stallion.

Bernie?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Slewbopper

Bernie?

He was a son of Cozzene who went 4-for-31 - earned no blacktype - and ran for a tag near the lower end of claiming levels at the end of his career. He's sired several winners at PID.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

I'm tired of hearing this. Secretariat was a darn good stallion; he sired 1) a Horse of the Year (Lady's Secret) 2) a Preakness/Belmont winner (Risen Star) 3) a Travers/Hopeful/Vosburg winner (General Assembly), 4) a Melbourne Cup winner (Kingston Rule), plus a good number of graded/group winners. As this recital indicates, Big Red was a stamina sire, however during his early stud career Claibourne and partners mated him as though he were a typical Bold Ruler son, with stamina mares. Only after his first 2yos got to the track did they realize their mistake and start to give him mares with a bit more speed (like Great Lady M.).

Affirmed was never expected to excell at stud by the Blood Grass elite breeders; he was by Exclusive Native, who was okay but not top drawer, while the damside was distinctly blue-collar. He was never given the top level mares, yet he still sired 1) a multiple US champion (Flawlessly), 2) a Canadian Triple Crown winner (Peteski), 3) classic winners (Trusted Partner, Bint Pasha), and numerous group/graded winners, including everyone's favorite, The Tin Dude. He, too, tended to produce horses who didn't excell at 2 on dirt tracks - most were better at 3 or older and on turf. That was a truly strange breeding result - a horse who never ran on turf and whose parents and grandparents never ran on turf should become an excellent sire of turf horses. Who can figure that one out?

he said they were disappointments, not failures. i would agree with that assessment. considering the talent those horses possessed, and the books of mares they were sent, i would say they were definitely disappointments, altho they did manage to get a few good horses. but the same could be said about a great many sires, who occasionally catch lightening in a bottle.

[miraja2]

I think it depends on what criteria you are looking at when you evaluate whether or not some sire is, or is not, a disappointment.

As a sire of racehorses Secretariat wasn't great, but he was pretty good.
As a sire of sires, he was useless.
As a broodmare sire, he was an absolutely huge success.

People could reasonably make the argument that Secretariat was a great sire by pointing to all of the Storm Cat and AP Indy blood in the breed today. Somebody else could also reasonably argue that no sire that completely failed in establishing a sire line should be called a great sire.
In some respects, both of those people would be right.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

It would have been almost impossible for Big Red to not have been an excellent broodmare sire when you consider the amazing quality and depth of the mares he was bred to.

Even if they weren't hits on the track - they were royally bred on the bottom and in such large numbers - many had to pop with good runners when bred back to top stallions.

I believe the best way to judge a stallion is to compare their success in relation to the quality of the mares they are being bred to each year.

Sires who consistantly move their mares up will eventually make it to the top as stallions. Stallions that move up mares like Distorted Humor, Storm Cat, A. P. Indy, Indian Charlie, Street Cry, Put It Back, Mr. Greeley etc have risen up - while stallions like Point Given and Fusaichi Pegasus .. who have thrown a few very good horses but underperform their book - they will start to fall down the ladder.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It would have been almost impossible for Big Red to not have been an excellent broodmare sire when you consider the amazing quality and depth of the mares he was bred to.

Clearly you are correct in saying that the fact that he saw so many quality mares has a lot to do with his success as a broodmare sire. But I think you might be selling him a bit short in terms of just how good of a broodmare sire he actually turned out to be.

It isn't just that he sired terrific broodmares like Fantastic Ways, Six Crowns, Terlingua, Weekend Surprise (etc.) that then produced really good horses on the track. The fact that arguably the two most dominant American sires of the last decade were BOTH out of Secretariat mares is fairly remarkable.
I don't care how good the mares are that a sire sees, THAT sort of production couldn't really be expected.

I guess I'm trying to say that he certainly saw enough quality mares that it was very likely that he would be a very good broodmare sire.
But I think he turned out to be a great one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

I'm tired of hearing this. Secretariat was a darn good stallion; he sired 1) a Horse of the Year (Lady's Secret) 2) a Preakness/Belmont winner (Risen Star) 3) a Travers/Hopeful/Vosburg winner (General Assembly), 4) a Melbourne Cup winner (Kingston Rule), plus a good number of graded/group winners. As this recital indicates, Big Red was a stamina sire, however during his early stud career Claibourne and partners mated him as though he were a typical Bold Ruler son, with stamina mares. Only after his first 2yos got to the track did they realize their mistake and start to give him mares with a bit more speed (like Great Lady M.).

Affirmed was never expected to excell at stud by the Blood Grass elite breeders; he was by Exclusive Native, who was okay but not top drawer, while the damside was distinctly blue-collar. He was never given the top level mares, yet he still sired 1) a multiple US champion (Flawlessly), 2) a Canadian Triple Crown winner (Peteski), 3) classic winners (Trusted Partner, Bint Pasha), and numerous group/graded winners, including everyone's favorite, The Tin Dude. He, too, tended to produce horses who didn't excell at 2 on dirt tracks - most were better at 3 or older and on turf. That was a truly strange breeding result - a horse who never ran on turf and whose parents and grandparents never ran on turf should become an excellent sire of turf horses. Who can figure that one out?

You missed the point. Secretariat was not a very successful sire especially compared to expectations. If he was running today and was retired after the belmont (which is surely what would happen) he would go to stud with a 150k fee. Can you say with a straight face that he was anywhere close to that kind of sire? Sure things are different but now but he was a huge disappointment at stud. As was Affirmed. Same scenario as above. What would he have stood for after winning the TC in 2008? 100k easy. Knowing now what kind of sires they turned out to be would you say that was a good deal? My point is that because of racetrack success people are paying way too much for unproven sires, both in breeding and at the sales. And as shown by numerous superior racehorses that are not premium sires, that is a bad play.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Just look at the 70's. Secretariat, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid who all rank in the top 20 all time (maybe better) all were disappointments at stud as were Alysheba, Easy Goer (though he didnt get much of a chance), Spend a Buck and Devils Bag in the 80's and Skip Away and Formal Gold among others in the 90's.

None of those nine great horses where really brilliant sprinter/miler types with sharp early speed except for perhaps Spend A Buck and Devil's Bag.

Spend A Buck has managed to sire four different multiple Grade 1 winning millionaires .. all of which from South American dams. They being Pico Central, Einstein, Antespend, and Hard Buck.

While Devils Bag wasn' a bad sire either - he was obviously a big disappointment - but his much lesser 8-year younger full brother Saint Ballado, who only sold for five figures as a yearling, has been a smashing success at stud.

Brilliant speed seems to be clearly the #1 stallion making quality.