Breaking down the Chac...

by Rox Girl on Jul 29, 2005 11:20 AM MDT in Rockpile

...well the Chac deal that is. First of all some links:

Marc Normandin's analytical observance of Chac's BABIP

And I'll add more links to this post as the day progresses, be sure to hit the Rockies blogs down the sidebar: only the Disaster Report (uhm, why don't you tell us how you really feel, Sam) and TGTB&TB had posted thoughts (Roxhead briefly calls the trade "horrible" in his front page game recap) as of a couple of minutes ago, but you should see more reaction soon.

Here's mine:

1. Does this trade make the team better right now:?

A: No.

2. Will the Rockies be better off next year from the players received in this trade?

A: No.

4. Will the Rockies ever be conceivably better off from the players received versus the player given up?

A: It's possible, but likely not.

3. Does this make the fans happy?

A: No.

4. Does this trade save the owners money?

A: That's debatable, ownership has set a payroll of $40 million for next year, and Chac's award in arbitration would have created a lot of hassles in fitting everybody else in. Why the $40 million figure? This is the real question we need to be asking as adjusting for inflation it will be the second lowest in Rockies franchise history next to their inaugural season. Why isn't this franchise succeeding financially when it has a sweetheart stadium deal, a middle of the pack attendance figure and a not too shabby media deal? I don't know all the figures that the team is looking at, but something doesn't seem right with that at first glance.

5. Are the owners going to use the saved money for the purposes of making the franchise better?

A: Not that I can tell, again $40 million for 2006 indicates this cut will either go into covering past losses, or hopefully go into a draft warchest so we can sign the best players available next year, but this move doesn't leave me optimistic that will be the case (remember in this most recent draft, our first choice, Luke Hochevar, we let slide because we didn't feel we would be able to meet his demands).

6. Was the player traded realistically going to be a part of a winning Rockies franchise in the future?

A: No. Not in his current role at least (other Rockies bloggers will disagree with me here, I'm sure). Chacon walked too many batters and thus usually had too high of a pitch count to make it deep into games for us. At 27, Chacon isn't old, but he isn't learning much more either. I just don't think the learning curve would have been enough to bring him to the level we needed him to be at.

7. Was this a good trade?

A: Given that we were going to trade Chac this year no matter what, I have to assume this was the best offer we got for him. Should we have traded him this year when the team will be worse next year with Day as a starter instead? Plain and simple, this trade was a salary dump. Whether it was a necessary salary dump is harder to fathom without knowing all the particulars, but I'm going to try to piece it together anyway. What I do know now is that Day won't be as good in stuff, but maybe he'll make up for it in efficiency. I know the two prospects are projects but there is at least a bit of promise there.

Because our farm is fairly deep, the two don't figure into our plans right away and neither will likely be in our top 30 or maybe even top 40 right now, but added projectible depth never hurts, especially when it comes to pitching. Regardless, I think the trade only works if there was money saved and it comes back into the system in the future as capital investment and improves the team down the road. If, as I suspect, it's just a stop-loss measure and the money never was there to be saved in the first place, then ownership is really putting itself out on a limb and risks alienating the dwindling fan base even further, and we have to wonder if the owners have overspent in the past to such a degree that their ability to maintain a viable professional sports franchise is in question. If such is the case, the spiral of fan exodus and mounting losses will continue until the team must be sold to more solvent leadership. Already, the team on the field is only marginally above a AAA level of quality. This Chac trade dilutes the quality of the product even further. At some point in order for the Rockies to succeed, payroll has to hit a valley bottom regardless of revenue and real gains have to be made with the on field product or we might as well not even bother with Major League Baseball.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice approach

I sense that you are a bit dissapointed with the deal, but you've taken time to analyze the decision further, and your points are well taken.

What this boils down to is; how good is Chacon? Take away his ERA, and you have a K rate of 4.83 and a walk rate of 4.46, both troubling and uninspiring. He's also been somewhat of a malcontent since his initial injury. Say what you want about run support, but those walk totals and lack of strikeouts were bound to catch up to him at Coors field, lucky for him he started keeping the ball in the park more this season. So with that, what we have is an entirely replacable 3-5th starter who didn't want to play ball with management.

Second, what I like best about this deal is that it gives Acevedo a longer look in the rotation. His obscenely low walk rate thus far has been his biggest asset, and his strikeouts have been there in the past, if only average numbers. He's also young enough to play a role in the next year or two's rotation if he plays consistently. BP sees greater things for this guy, and he has the workhorse build, possibly leading to a fine career as a number three guy. if starting still won't work out for Acevedo, at least it was looked into, and we know that he can handle a relief role competently.

I think the local factor plays too heavy a role in this Chacon deal. Has everyone just swept last season under the rug, or about three season's ago when he fought management again over a demotion? I don't think we even know the whole story on Chacon, but there is enough evidence to show that he wasn't the happiest of campers even before the trade rumors.

Let me add one thing; falling in love with players because of familiarity is a dangerous habit for franchises, and is often the cause for fans dissent. Of this movement thus far, I see redeeming value in only Barmes, Hawpe, Francis and Carvajal of the young rookies or sophomores. I'm afraid fan's attachment to Holliday and Atkins, two Coors enhanced players whose bats may not carry them in a neutral park, and aren't so young that major changes can be expected. .300 is only one number, and it doesn't tell the whole story on these guys. For a true sign of their progress, I recommend baseballprospectus.com's player cards while everything on the site is free (preview is on until the 3rd I believe.) Check out the translated BA OBP and SLG

by David "ohno" on Jul 29, 2005 11:56 AM MDT 0 recs

I agree with most everything,

And have said as much in the past regarding pretty much all the players you mention. Holliday did pick up on the road this last time out, so I'll be checking in to his stats toward the end of the season to see if he's improved his stock at all, otherwise I say see what he'll bring back to us and Atkins is still in my book a stop-gap before Baker or looking more likely now, Stewart.

I'd add Luis Gonzalez to the list of redeeming sophs, but only as a low priced utility sub and not as a high priced regular, and I still wonder if Closser's bat could make him an effective back-up as well. I guess I see redeeming benefits to a couple of our other relief pitchers too, namely Tsao and Dohmann (not really Speier). Although if by redeeming value you mean starting salary valuable, I can see those four you mention being the only ones.

As far as Chacon, he does have a lot of local appeal. Plus, it's more tricky, because looking at only the three players involved, the Rockies don't appear to have come out ahead as two minor leaguers with control problems don't equal one major leaguer with control problems in this case and fans will see that and jump on it. Management's stance regarding the move isn't going to be popular either, as they seem to be trying desperately to tie Zach Day to this deal, but of course we already lost a starter when we acquired Day and here nobody the fans can actually see for awhile is returning in Chacon's place (Acevedo too, was already on board when the deal happened). Plus, having to admit the salary considerations necessitated the move leaves a fairly bitter taste as Denver fans won't like to swallow the poor franchise label when they go all out for their teams when the team shows any semblance of a pulse.

Chacon really didn't act deserving of the adolation he carries, either on or off the field and you're right, the whole primadonna thing wears thin after a time, but in the end, the deal on its own merits bodes ill for the franchise just because it seems to be so much about saving money and not about building the team into a winner. What do we do if Acevedo is semi-successful? At this point the fans have little evidence to suggest that the team would attempt to keep him beyond his low-budget days and the same holds true for almost all the young players we're watching right now. Management is really backing itself into a corner with all these recent sell-offs. Right now I think it's safe to say that if it fails to make a "good faith" move of some sort fairly soon, the fab backlash might push the team to go after a recognizable name player. That kind of forced move is seldom rewarding for the team involved as the most affordable "name" players will be well past their prime and will probably just end up blocking one of our prospects needlessly.

I'm just worried about the message this sends mostly, and knowing that our budget crunch was already severe, I don't envision the further erosion of attendance that seems likely to happen as anything but a minus on our long term ambitions.

by Rox Girl on Jul 29, 2005 12:44 PM MDT up 0 recs

Points well taken

I will say that Gonzalez was a bad omission on my behalf, and I think he should play every day at second. I left Dohmann and Tsao off the list because of the limited time for evaluation. I wish we would consider Tsao for the rotation next season, because he could be a frontline starter.

by David "ohno" on Jul 29, 2005 1:24 PM MDT 0 recs

Tsao could

be a frontline starter, but given his injury woes, we could have to worry about him hurting himself everytime out. The bullpen gives him a better chance of staying healthy, though this year he wasnt able too.

As for Chacon, I think the whole local-boy thing is taken a little too far. Yes, he is a local-boy, and its great. But that doesnt mean he gets better treatment. As far as Im concerned, he complained when the Rockies wanted him to go on rehab, he complained when they demoted him a couple years ago (mentioned by OhNo). O'Dowd also mentioned that you could probably ask Chacon and he would say that it was time to move on. He was giving indications, in my mind, by some of the comments he made to the media. After P-Dub was trade, he didnt like it and said "I dont know what they plan is."

Helton doesnt mind the trade. He said yesterday he doesnt see how this is deviating away from the plan. I tend to agree. Two young arms for a 27 year old, who is injury prone, and as OhNo mentioned, doesnt have a good K:W ratio. That is bound to catch up with you. If you arent a sinkerball, as Chacon isnt, and you dont strike out a lot of guys, Coors Field has a tendency to catch up to year. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, who knows when, but it will.

People are making it like we gave away a Randy Johnson or Curt Schilling. We gave away Chacon everybody!! A guy that EVERYBODY wanted to trade last year for NOTHING. We got 2 strong armed kids. Not to say they will pan out, but they have a chance.

People are taking O'Dowd's comments of "We are not sure if they will become big league players", out of context. READ BETWEEN THE LINES: that is with ANY pitching prospect, or any prospect for that matter. Ryan Anderson? How many teams would've wanted him a couple years ago. We would be throwing party after party if we got this kid. We would've said how we "ripped Seattle" off, etc. Sierra and Ramirez. Wont amount to anyting??...hmm I heard the same thing about Carvajal and Fuentes before they came over too. How bout Derrick Gibson and Ben Petrick? They were supposed to be the next superstars!! But they arent. In reality, its a fact: you get what you can get. And O'Dowd himself said that Chacon nor Kennedy fit into the pieces as a future core. Can we argue with him?? I dont see how two #3-5 starters fit either, especially ones who are "you dont know what you will get that day."

And another thought that I havent heard--yes, this might be preceived as a salary dump. But with the trades of P-Dub, Kennedy, and Chacon, does anybody think that the money is being used toward the draft, specifically Hancock and Reese Havens/Jeremy Farrell?? I havent seen it mentioned.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Jul 29, 2005 2:13 PM MDT 0 recs

Interesting Take

You seem to be higher on the prospects than most. I like the added depth, but the reason I see them as unlikely of adding much to the pen is a simple matter of heirarchy:

Rockies RHP Prospects:

Starters likely to develop ahead of Ramirez:

Jason Young
Mike Esposito
Sandy Nin
Jon Asahina
Ubaldo Jiminez
Enmanuel Ulloa
Marc Kaiser

I don't include Morillo because he's younger and has similar control problems and has been pitching about as long as Ramirez although he has a much higher ceiling. Yet all of the above should be ready for MLB action sooner than Ramirez is going to be, and yeah, some of them are older and a few don't have the same ceiling as he does, but a couple of them have a higher one and that's troubling for his prospects to make it as a starter. As a reliever? I think he has a much better shot, but I think comparing him to either Carvajal or Fuentes is unwarranted (just to let you know, I was highest on Fuentes of the pieces we got when we traded Cirillo, and loved our Rule Five draft this year the day it happened) at this stage.

Sierra is in his seventh minor league season and that makes keeping him a space on the roster issue while we're waiting for him to develop. With several relievers ahead of him, he has to finish his development and gain control fast or I see him leaving the system as soon as this winter. Still, like I keep saying, it appears this is the best deal we were offered for Chacon and given that and the fact that we weren't going to have it in the budget to sign him that makes it okay, and once again, as long as the money saved is used to improve the club (signing Havens, etc.., would count) than it's a winner of a deal, but thus far there has been no sign that the dollars are going anywhere than backpayments to cover past bad contracts and failed attendance projections because Rockies fans stopped paying to see inferior teams.

As bad as Chacon was, he was better than Ramirez is now or is likely going to be (and you're right, likely isn't absolute, Ramirez could still become a stud as far as we can tell but I'm just talking about probabilities based on age and performance to date) and Sierra's window of opportunity is very small, making this deal far different from the Carvajal - Fuentes ones you mention. I need to see a signal that capital saved is being used to improving the club long term before I sign off on the deal as being a part of any sort of plan for the future and not just a way to cut costs.

by Rox Girl on Jul 29, 2005 3:20 PM MDT up 0 recs

Ok

but, if what's in the potential future for these guys is the bottom of the Rockies rotation, why trade someone from the CURRENT middle to top of the rotation to get a miniscule chance of replacing your current no. 4 starter with a different player a few years down the line?

p.s. they wanted to trade Chac last year because the Rockies made a dumb move and stubbornly refused to admit its failure until september.

Sam-- Check out the two man Rockies blogotron @ www.rockiesdr.blogspot.com

by Sam on Jul 30, 2005 8:27 AM MDT up 0 recs

Comments by ESPN

on Chacon trade..I agree with him. Why not make the trade? Chacon has a horrendouse W:K ratio in the majors.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2096378

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Jul 29, 2005 2:45 PM MDT 0 recs

I like the line

that fans in Denver aren't likely to notice the trade given that Broncos training camp is underway. Ah, O'Dowd could get away with a couple more bad trades since everybody in Denver's watching Plummer & Co. anyway.

by Rox Fan in TN on Jul 29, 2005 3:24 PM MDT up 0 recs

I posted something on my blog.

In the short-term, this trade looks bad, but it could turn out for the best in the long-term. While it does send a bad message both to fans (that the organization thinks it's a "small-market" franchise and must behave as such) and to prospects within the organization (make it to the big leagues, pitch for a couple of years, and you can be traded away for prospects!) in the long-term this could end up being a decent deal even if neither of the prospects pan out. For one, we know what we're getting with Chacon: a middle-of-the-rotation starter at best who could become a clubhouse cancer (if he's not already) whose K/BB and K/IP ratios betray his decent ERA (for a Rockies pitcher, anyway.) Second, we really don't know what we're getting with the prospects. Sure, Ramirez and Sierra both have problems, but they both reportedly have some pretty good stuff that could turn them into decent bullpen options for the Rockies in the future. And they're both already at AA (Ramirez actually got some time at AAA earlier this year), so they're more advanced than most of our better pitching prospects at this point (U-ball, Morillo, Dragon, Lindsay, etc.)

I've mentioned some of the downsides to this trade. Chacon wouldn't have broken the bank in arbitration given his won-loss record, and even so, with Wilson, CJ, etc. coming off the books this offseason and attendance not as bad as it should be for a last-place team, the Rockies do not really need to be trying to save money. I would like this trade better if we'd gotten better prospects, but this is Shawn Chacon, not a front-of-the-rotation starter. Anyways, I think Chacon should have been traded before Kennedy, who's young enough that the Rockies probably could have salvaged something out of him (and he's lefthanded.)

Thank God JJ got hurt or else he might be a Yankee right now. Chacon's issues with management are the Yankees' problem now.

by Rox Fan in TN on Jul 29, 2005 2:51 PM MDT 0 recs

I'm sorry

BB/K ratios don't betray ERAs. If anything, ERA is the stat that matters. Say what you will about flawed statistics, but the most important one for a starting pitcher is how many he gives up on average. If the Rockies think that a guy that consistently got them into the sixth or seventh allowing around three runs is expendable, that's just nuts.

Sam-- Check out the two man Rockies blogotron @ www.rockiesdr.blogspot.com

by Sam on Jul 30, 2005 8:30 AM MDT up 0 recs

I see your point, and understand your concern

but I am a big believer in K and W rates, almost to a fault, and those numbers are typically the best tool to measure future success, and are readily repeatable, unlike ERA, which can suffer from a rash of fluke hits or defensive mental miscues or lack of range. The rates are the best indicator of a pitchers individual performance, what he directly contributes to the cause, and limiting damage. Chacon's walk rates and low Ks likely would have led to a spike in his ERA in the second half, but now at sea level, he may pitch worse but see his numbers stay roughly the same. I know these prospects aren't much, but it is a series of actions created by this deal that is the real value. chacon was no longer in the plans, nor do I think he wanted to be, and Zach Day may be in the cards if he handles his role in the rotation in the next few months. This is something we wouldn't know without clearing a rotation spot. I think that Day is more equipped to battle Coors with his quality sinker, and his groundball tendencies counter-balance his middling Ks and Ws. There's a ot of confusion right now, but the shake out could be copleted by next week, when the Rockies have completed the player movements in house that come with trades. Hopefully, we will soon see the benefit of dealing Chacon, whose skill set isn't beyond the realm of easiy aquired veteran talent through free agency.

by David "ohno" on Jul 30, 2005 8:44 AM MDT up 0 recs

I am

higher on the prospects than most...but also I am prepared if they fail. I just think there is that chance they can be good. I know the Carvajal and Fuentes comparsion wasnt a great one, but many people werent expecting anything. Carvajal was told he would struggle, and Fuentes many people werent high on (not including you, who apparently was).

There are always throw-ins into a deal that turn out to be good. Not saying these two are throw-ins, but they have the potential. Sierra especially.

Its just my take. I respect your opinion.

As for your list, the reason I dont really like lists is all 7 of them could turn out to do exactly nothing in the majors. They have the talent, but its about putting it together. I feel the same way about Ramirez and Sierra; they have the talent, they just need to put it together. Give it 2-3 years, and we will know the winner of this deal, if there is one.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Jul 29, 2005 3:37 PM MDT 0 recs

True, and I didn't mean to disrespect your

thoughts in any way as the opinion is valid and definitely not the unthought out stances I've been seeing around regarding this deal on either side. I am hopeful that Ramirez turns out to be something special, and Sierra's an acceptable risk, but sometimes I let the pragmatic side of me get in the way of things.

The psychological effect of having Chacon's troubling attitude removed from the clubhouse will be an interesting intangible I wish there was a better way of monitoring empirically. I wonder if it might be good enough alone for a couple of wins as Chac never seemed to get a whole lot of support on or off the field from his teammates.

by Rox Girl on Jul 29, 2005 3:45 PM MDT up 0 recs

I see the future! lol

Kyle Hancock is now signed...from ESPN transactions page.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Jul 29, 2005 3:39 PM MDT 0 recs

Yeayyyy!!!

See there's an outward sign I can take as a positive step.

by Rox Girl on Jul 29, 2005 3:46 PM MDT up 0 recs

Rox Girl

you didnt respect my opinion AT ALL. I didnt feel offended one bit. I just was saying I respect your opinions and everybody elses too. I just was voicing my opinions. For some, mine is wrong, for others, mine is right, and visa versa with you and other posters. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, and I am glad that we as fellow Rockie Fans respect one anothers.

On the Hancock note, I am happy that the Rox used the money saved in the recent trades to make a signing like the Hancock one. That is where I want the money to go-towards player development. I would also like the Rox to get in the bidding for Rolando Pascual, the top international player on the market. He is a 6-6 pitcher from the Dominican who is 16, throws in the low 90s, and as one scout puts it, "Hes a hard thrower who looks like he could do it all day." Apparently, from what Ive read, he has a very smooth delivery.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Jul 29, 2005 4:05 PM MDT 0 recs

This

This is by far the most civil internet discussion I've ever seen. There's intelligent dialogue, no cursing, except on my part that is, et cetera. Try getting stuff like this on another message board. I'm glad to have some fellow masochist Rockies fans to suffer with.

Sam-- Check out the two man Rockies blogotron @ www.rockiesdr.blogspot.com

by Sam on Jul 30, 2005 8:34 AM MDT up 0 recs

Seems we almost made another trade

last night according to Ken Rosenthal.

Byrnes for Bigbie and an exchange of prospects.

And I think we should definitely go after Pascual.

by Russ on Jul 29, 2005 4:56 PM MDT 0 recs

Stuff

The great thing about the invention of blogs is the quick interaction between readers.

Quickly, I love the stuff on 4. a. ... the payroll issues. This is where one has to start and end when talking about these horrble trades. And lets face it, no matter how much you want to spin the issue, these were just terrible trades based on knowing what next years arbitration figures will look like concerning 2 starters with less than appealing numbers.

What happen tonight with respect to Jose Acevedo starting was a joke. A few short weeks ago the Rockies had an abundance of starters, however average, and tonight we had to throw in a bullpen sarcrificial lamb, at home on a Friday night, against a division contenting Phillies.

This type of crap must stop because it seems that no matter how well O'Dowd does in one aspect, he negates that with stupidity in another. I understand that Chacon and Kennedy were disappointing lately but weren't they worth more? ... And if they weren't, then why trade them? Did the Rox bring up someone from the minors they were just dying to get in? No... they made room for wore out bullpen journeyman.

Next up.. Aquilino Lopez and his 4 innings of excellence Friday night. Perhaps we should move Jeff Francis out for this guy!!

by roxhead on Jul 30, 2005 2:27 AM MDT 0 recs

That's

What I'm saying.

Sam-- Check out the two man Rockies blogotron @ www.rockiesdr.blogspot.com

by Sam on Jul 30, 2005 8:34 AM MDT 0 recs

By the way

Dealin Dan says ""We're building a pitching staff that we feel has a chance to succeed here, with the ability to hold onto them if we do,"

I'm sorry, um, Chacon's ERA was 4.09.
Jay Witasick's ERA at home was 2.11.

Fine. Take Joe Kennedy. He was a Nationalsesque mirage, I guess.

Their replacements?

Acevedo has a career 5.52 ERA.

I might be sold on Day, but then I saw him do pretty poorly in his appearences, averaging 2 ER per inning. He's still got a shot, I think.

I mention Witasick because the Rockies bullpen has regressed to become closer to early season than it is to the June bullpen. Take a couple of nights ago. Mike DeJean gives up three in a tied game, putting it out of reach. The Cincinatti series, directly in the aftermath of the Witasick trade, was swept by the Reds. The Rox lead going into the eighth in one of the games and were tied going into it in the eigth. Whatever, though. We got Quintanilla, and not sarcastically, I think that was an appropriate move seeing as Dubyas and Ells don't matter at this point.

I'm not entirely joking about the GM being a propaganda machine. It's a viable theory.

Sam-- Check out the two man Rockies blogotron @ www.rockiesdr.blogspot.com

by Sam on Jul 30, 2005 8:46 AM MDT 0 recs