Tuesday Rockpile: Still waiting for Matt Holliday to be officially traded to the Oakland Athletics

by Russ on Nov 11, 2008 8:38 AM MST in Rockpile Comment 65 comments

Because this has moved David's examination of the trade down a bit, click here to go there and continue the discussion.

His slide on 1 October 2007 will forever be the most cherished memory Rockies fans have of Matt Holliday. As Dave Krieger puts it (in his piece on why Holliday was traded):

He became an indelible part of our collective memory late on the night of Oct. 1, 2007, bloodying his chin while sliding across home plate (or not) to put the Rockies into the postseason.

Now Rockies fans won't be lucky enough to watch Matt Holliday take left field in Coors Field. But to Mark Kiszla (predictably):

Slugger Matt Holliday was the lucky one.

He took his bat and got out of town.

With a .319 career average, Holliday has departed in a trade to Oakland. He waved goodbye with customary quiet grace, despite being trashed by ownership in his final weeks as a member of the Rockies.

For a franchise that prides itself on high character and a low payroll, the Rockies again proved in this deal it is far easier to be cheap than classy.

Matt Holliday had this to say:

"I can't tell you how much I appreciated how me and my family were treated in Denver by the fan and the people behind the scenes in the organization. They were so important. And that's the saddest thing."

Garrett Atkins is sad to see his friend go, but thinks this might be a positive for his chances to stay with the Rockies:

"I don't know if it means I am next," Atkins said. "I think they might want to keep me more now. At least that is what I am hoping."

And today is Veterans Day, or Remembrance Day and Armistice Day elsewhere. Take a moment to thank all those who have served.

0 recs | Comment 65 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You actually read Kizla?

You’re a braver man than I. Maybe he’ll boycott going to Rockies games again like he did in May of 07. That seemed to work out pretty well.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Nov 11, 2008 8:49 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

It seems very unlikely that the D-backs re-sign him, and the money saved from trading Holliday might be just enough to lure him to Denver, particularly if we also trade Atkins. He’s fading with age, but he’s probably an upgrade on Smith for next season. We’d have plenty of young pitchers to cover his down time. The move seems to be making more sense as the offseason progresses.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 9:01 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Where the money goes

I’m partial to offering up money for a different former D-Back – Orlando Hudson.

1) We really don’t have a leadoff hitter as presently constructed – Hudson could fit that bill as he’s posted the three best OBP numbers of his career in the last three seasons.
2) Defensively, he’s still the best in the business, and his addition gets us back close to 2007 levels in terms of infield defense. Cook in particular would do backflips.
3) If the scuttlebut that the Rox played too tight last year is true, Hudson would loosen up the clubhouse. He’s a well respected veteran who plays hard every day.
4) He’s not Matt Holliday, but signing a player like Hudson – and spending a bit of money to do so – would allow the Rox to at least point to something and say ‘See, we’re passing the Holliday savings on to you, the fan’.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Nov 11, 2008 9:06 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a good idea too, if it fits.

I think Hudson might get crazy money from the Mets, or at least a crazy five year commitment. I don’t think signing a guy on the wrong side of thirty for more than three seasons is wise, particularly given that the injury bug has started to hit him.

I like RJ because it’s likely to be a short term, one season deal. If we could sign Brad Penny up to something like that like Ringolsby suggested the other day I would like it better, but I don’t see that happening.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 9:21 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Hudson's injuries

I don’t know what the injuries were in the last couple of years, but last year he dislocated his wrist, which strikes me more as a bad-luck injury and not one that represents a player who is particularly injury prone. I might be wrong, but I’m not sure he’s dealt with anything nagging over the past three years, which have been the best of his career. The Mets might be players for him, but they may choose to give the big bucks to relief help and an outfielder if one came available.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Nov 11, 2008 9:43 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Why

Would we waste a year on RJ when he’s not even remotely close to good enough to make this team a playoff team? I’d rather pitch the kids and figure out who is good to go for the 2010 year. No pretense of contending next year, but if somehow we manage to pull together to actually contend along the way, well that’ll just be roses.

by Teekalong on Nov 11, 2008 9:52 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Normally

I’d agree, but most of the kids haven’t really shown they’re ready. Friedrich is still too fresh. Morales and Reynolds definitely could use some minor league seasoning. I suppose Hirsh and De La Rosa could be given spots since I don’t think either of them would benefit from the minors too much… Maybe sign RJ and if he does well and if one of the younger guys steps up, trade him to a contender (assuming the Rox aren’t contending).

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 10:05 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The way I see it

RJ is not coming here, no matter what. Someone else will offer him something. Coors Field (on a non-competing team) will be the last resort other than retirement for him.

Anyway, I’d much rather figure out what we have among Morales, Smith, Reynolds and Hirsh. I agree that none appears ready. Morales is the only one I really have any hope for becoming a legit MLB starter (I don’t know Smith but not encouraged by the reports) but the rest might be useful guys, and we might as well figure out now so that we can best gear up for 2010.

by Teekalong on Nov 11, 2008 12:07 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea

what I said was based on RJ actually willing to come here for reasonable money for 1 year which is incredibly unlikely. So basically, I agree completely. Hirsh’s minor league numbers were so pretty. Too bad he’s just been injured/ineffective here…

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 12:25 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Can we also sign

a good back for RJ?

"Never Surrender Dreams" - Inscription on J. Michael Straczynski's bench

Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!

by Russ on Nov 11, 2008 9:10 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

If we could, we better get two of them

One for our first baseman as well.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 9:18 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I read something about the Rockies dangling Huston Street to St. Louis...

…for Ludwick. I’m quite sure Street alone wouldn’t get it done, and I’m almost thinking the Rockies will end up throwing Hawpe/Spilly/Fowler (I hope not on the latter) in the deal as well. Otherwise, wouldn’t we have a rather large surplus of outfielders?

Rock rock 'til you drop!

by theoldgrizzlybear on Nov 11, 2008 9:17 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Please never speak of this again.

Trading a quality bullpen arm for another outfielder that doesn’t bring a ton of additional value to the team is a terrible terrible idea. (Not saying it’s your idea – but whoever it is, it’s terrible)

by Hizilla on Nov 11, 2008 10:44 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I should have clarified...

I would be against this deal all the way, but if they’re gonna do, they absolutely SHOULD NOT give up prospects – especially those of Dex’s caliber.

Rock rock 'til you drop!

by theoldgrizzlybear on Nov 11, 2008 11:01 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree.

My point mostly was that OF is in no way a position of need right now (see David’s post). If you’re going to give up valuable commodities, you need to fill a position of need.

by Hizilla on Nov 11, 2008 11:59 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't see a Cards/Rockies fit

Yes the Cards would probably like to have Street, but Iike you, I’d guess that they would value Ludwick over Street, and thus expect something more. But the last thing they need are more OFers. They need a LOOGY, back-end rotation insurance and middle infielders.

Now if the Rox agreed to take Adam Kennedy from them, maybe they’d listen. Of course the Rox fan in me says “NO, NO, NO”.

as both a Rockies and Cards fan, I just don’t see any trade that benefits both teams.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

why wouldnt A's do street/ludwick

straight up…beane doesnt get the bat of holliday, but ludwick is solid

unless beane values holliday as a trade asset much more

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 11, 2008 3:48 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

sithslrthtn

Randy just wants to get to 300 wins and retire. I doubt the Rockies would be in his mind for something like that but w/e, you could certainly do worse for a 1 year deal (like Towers/Zambrano/Rusch/Redman). Orlando Hudson is a great player, he just gets injured a lot. I’d try to sign him to a 2 year contract or something.

Why do the Rox want Ludwick so much?

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 9:20 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

While I don't think he's as good as 2008...

He’s not a bad player by any means, and he’s relatively affordable for the next few seasons. Somebody was mentioning in yesterday’s thread that he’s also got a stat line that would console the low info fans that the Rockies really are trying to compete for 2009 despite trading Holliday. If all it takes to get him is a reliever, albeit a good one in Street, than I think you have to look into that. It would also be nice that if the Rockies did get him, that they also petition for the NL to adopt the DH rule.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 9:28 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Ludwick

I think Ludwick will regress but still be a quality outfielder. I just don’t think he really fits in with the Rockies and their current OF glut. I guess one can hope that Ludwick comes here, enjoys hitting in Coors and more or less repeats his ‘08 line and then the Rox can trade him for even more now that he’s established legitimacy… But the way Ludwick was being displayed as the main piece in a deal for Holliday was just unacceptable to me…

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 9:38 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick for Street does appear more equitable

but that creates quite a log jam in the outfield while re-opening a bullpen wound.

Spilborghs should be the opening day left fielder and leadoff hitter of the Rockies next year. He was one of the best hitters on the team by EQA, understands the concept of getting on base, and has the defensive abilities to handle the role. The team has a good regular but no star in Spilborghs. There’s even an opportunity here for Smith to platoon with Spilborghs.

After that, Gonzalez probably deserves first crack at centerfield. He’s a big defensive upgrade and considering his numbers were close to his 10% PECOTA projectile, he’s naturally bound for a rebound offensively.

That leaves right field for Ludwick, which is already occupied by resident slugger Brad Hawpe… Could the team then look to flip Brad? Why not? He’s an awful fielder who’s arm has regressed (in terms of accuracy at least) and would be the inferior player to Ludwick in this scenario.

A Ludwick-Spilborghs-Hawpe outfield should not happen, especially if there are thoughts that Francis, Smith, Reynolds, or Hirsh are expected to see time on the mound.

Could the Rockies surprise everyone and move Hawpe? Would Chicago be interested in a Hawpe-Jenks swap?

Ultimately, I think it makes more sense to keep Street and look to fill the bullpen in around him.

by David OhNo on Nov 11, 2008 11:53 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I'm mostly in your camp here,

Although here’s a point of disagreement, as I have been saying I would rather include Street to sweeten an Atkins deal to one of the three AL Central teams. I see you post below that you’d rather include Smith, but I just don’t think Smith has much value right now as he might later. If Smith has a decent 2009, which shouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility in the weak NL West, his value shoots way up as a repeat performer for two different squads, including one that’s in a very hitter friendly environment. If he’s only so-so, say around his 5.36 xFIP, he has just as much value as he does now, which to say isn’t much more than a bottom of the rotation innings eater. If he tanks completely as a starter, well he’ll probably be valuable in that specialist role and the difference in the trade value of that compared to fifth starter isn’t as much as it should be.

I think if you’re looking to optimize the return, you keep Smith at least for one season and see how he pitches, and with Street it depends on what the return is. If he can draw out some big time young talent with Atkins, package them together. Or try this, and you’ll see what I’m thinking: Street to St. Louis for Ludwick, Ludwick to Atlanta for Kelly Johnson.

Mozeliak isn’t taking the straight up Johnson/Ludwick trade for some reason, but that doesn’t mean we can’t.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 12:22 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Is there any team

That needs a solid 3b and closer and has a sweet young pitching stud?

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 12:38 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Cleveland seems the most likely possibility

They’ve got young pitching all over the place and have needs for both a closer and a third baseman. If the Rockies could trade Atkins and Street for Aaron Laffey, they come out with a better team for the next few seasons. The Angels might also work.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 12:46 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

yea

I think yesterday you had mentioned Cleveland as good trade partners given our assets and their needs and it piqued my interest. I looked at their young pitchers from last season and I gotta say, I’m not really feeling them. Laffey just doesn’t strike people out – in fact, none of the young guys, Lewis, Sowers, even Anthony Reyes didn’t do a good job, though he had done better in years past… I wonder if it’d be possible to get Adam Miller (did he get injured or something last year?) and maybe Josh Barfield for 2b

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 5:18 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Laffey

Laffey is an extreme groundball pitcher who manages to get a decent number of strike-outs despite a less than overpowering fastball.

Atkins and Street for just Laffey – I don’t know if I like that but they could definitely do worse.

by MADness on Nov 11, 2008 5:53 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we'd get just him...

I’m just saying that he alone would make the return of whatever else we got back worth the cost of Street and Atkins. He’s not the only pitcher in that category that Cleveland has, however, I just think that if we are getting a pitcher plus for Street and Atkins, he’s a likely candidate. I don’t think Cleveland would give up on Carmona that easily, I’d prefer him, obviously, I don’t know if we’d get Huff, either, but there seem to be plenty of other available arms on that team.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 6:29 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I'm with you here

all things neutral, I like Aaron Laffey, as MADness points out he is a GB heavy pitcher and fits in with the Rockies’ approach when it comes to pitching.

However, with the trade for Smith and the possibility for free agency additions, I’m not sure Laffey would be a wise use of valuable resources. Laffey’s upside is not as high as Cook’s, he doesn’t have that power sinker that can still skate by when his command is off, and the lack of plus velocity could limited his long term usefulness. Like Cook, he’s a low K low walk guy, which is fine, but how much of an improvement can Laffey be?

I do believe Laffey is an upgrade over Smith, but is it significant enough to use two big trade chips and re-open a hole in the bullpen? While Laffey has the better tools to succeed long term, Smith has actually accomplished more at the major league level, which though somewhat flukey, does speak well for him. Coming into the season, Laffey’s weighted mean PECOTA suggested a 4.55 ERA on top of an 18.4 VORP, good numbers to be sure, but something more expected from a number four or five starter.

At some point, the Rockies cannot acquire anymore number four-five starters. Francis, Cook, and Jimenez will have to be in the rotation. After those three, Smith and Jorge De La Rosa hold the inside trackm with Hirsh-Reynolds-Morales following closely behind and do have the potential to be capable pitchers in these roles. Laffey won’t be a better pitcher than Francis (the K’s have never been there but the stuff is similar in nature), he could be a better pitcher than De La Rosa or Smith, but does he improve the rotation over those two enough to outway the cost of losing Street? Remember, a down year for Street was still worth roughly two wins in WXRL.

This trade would also require the Rockies to either, A) trade more assets to fill the hole believed to be filled by Street, or B) Use planned free agency money to fill this hole. As is, the Rockies were likely to spend on the bullpen anyways, but now, instead of filling around Street-Corpas-Buchholz, they are having to fill in for Street as well.

With Smith around, I just don’t see the Indians being great trade partners anymore. I do like Huff, since he has similar potential to Laffey, but won’t require a roster spot like Aaron will. Sowers is probably the lesser alternative to the three, so I wouldn’t touch him either.

At this point, so long as Smith is staying on, if the Rockies are to be packaging Street with Atkins for a pitcher, the returning starter has to have legit number three stuff: Capable of covering both the loss of Street and improving over the Rockies alternatives. I don’t think Cleveland can do this, and i’m beginning to think Minnesota will have to step beyond Slowey to cover this as well. Basically, the Rockies need a pitcher with more stuff.

Do you think the Rockies may still sniff around Oliver Perez? This is the type of pitcher I would be thinking of adding to the rotation.

by David OhNo on Nov 11, 2008 6:36 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I realize I misspoke

I was meaning to imply how easy it would be to get a trade that benefits the team with Cleveland, not the total return I’d wish for in such a trade.

I don’t think we’re too far off, I’m writing a much longer post which comes to just that conclusion about going after an FA starter like Perez after the dust settles. I think for a team like the Rockies it’s a matter of finding the guy who’s slipping through the cracks and snapping him up when he feels like his options are getting limited. I think Perez, given Scott Boras’ likely demands, might be that guy this year. I think in the end he might settle for a high dollar short contract rather than an underwhelming long one. If the Rockies have $13 million it might do the trick.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 6:49 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh Atkins

Don’t kid yourself, hon. You’re OUUUUUUTTTAAAA HERE. Because that’s what we’re getting back to this winter.

Blast and botheration.

by Silverblood on Nov 11, 2008 9:55 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Actually, in his case it's also because it's better for the team

But just because there’s a conjunction of the team needs and the Monforts cheapness for once doesn’t convince me entirely that what you say isn’t the more likely reason for his being moved.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 10:35 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

However...

Wouldn’t a trade of Atkins + Greg Smith to the Twins for Kevin Slowey actually represent sound front office management?

If Atkins goes for the right piece, and some portion of the savings from the combined deals goes to signing either Hudson or Juan Cruz, I’d be thrilled with that.

Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave

by Mondogarage on Nov 11, 2008 10:37 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the only way this works

is for the Rockies to take the contract savings of Holliday, and Atkins and actually spend it on either Free Agents or taking on contracts in return of quality players.

If it’s just banked by the Monforts…it’s a salary dump winter.

Where is my Bobby Bonilla Marlins jersey?

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Nov 11, 2008 10:49 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of flipping Smith

he’s the player I’m most concerned in becoming the pumpkin of the deal. BP thought he could make a good specialist, and though his splits may not suggest that yet, he could adjust his pitching patterns to be a good candidate for a bullpen role.

Smith plus Atkins could net a nice return without the Rockies then having to work to replace Street.

This is starting to look like the Jennings trade, where Taveras was coming to Colorado only to go right back out the door. Luckily for the ‘07 Rockies, that wasn’t the case.

by David OhNo on Nov 11, 2008 11:56 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

He's long gone now, but for a different reason

Atkins staying would mean Stewart moving to left field, relegating yet another outfielder to the bench. The Rockies currently have their four outfielders needed to have a quality outfield, and one stud in Fowler awaiting opportunity. Stewart was pretty much gauranteed third base with that Holliday trade, and Atkins was pretty much gauranteed a new forwarding address for his April-September mail.

by David OhNo on Nov 11, 2008 12:04 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

How much faith do they have in Helton though?

Helton is still the wildcard when talking about trading Atkins. If/when Helton goes down again, Hawpe comes to first base? Koshansky gets his chance?

I don’t know, I guess there’s just this part of me that thinks they are really selling low on Atkins by doing so this offseason. Not to mention that I hate that they are going to feel obligated to put Helton in the starting line-up when he’s healthy. No disrespect to Helton, but I’d rather have Atkins batting there.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Nov 11, 2008 12:29 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

As David has pointed out many a time, the best lineup is with Helton on the bench and Atkins playing 1B. Unfortunately that can’t happen if Helton is healthy. He makes too much to sit on the bench, and has little to no trade value with his performance and his health issues.

by Hizilla on Nov 11, 2008 12:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe that anymore though.

Atkins proved to be awful at first, and his offense wasn’t so much better that it would make sense to hold onto him long term.

by David OhNo on Nov 11, 2008 4:49 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Atkins wasn't awful

Atkins is a natural first baseman and was considered the best fielding first baeman in his draft. When you play three different second basemen a week, two shortstops, and a couple of different third basemen like the Rox did last year, throws are going to be all over the place. Plus he look different playing first being right-handed which is a bit of an oddity.

by brainteaser on Nov 13, 2008 8:50 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

How likely is it

that this surgery helps Helton’s back enough to have a slight increase in production? I know it’d still be weak for a 1b but a .310 avg with 20hrs and a .400 OBP isn’t complete trash…

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 12:41 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Uggle

Is he still being shopped? What would the rockies have to give up to get him? Do the marlins have any interest in torrealba still?

by purplesocks on Nov 11, 2008 11:10 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

sorry should say Uggla

by purplesocks on Nov 11, 2008 11:10 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Last I heard, which was yesterday with the Olsen and Willingham trade

Was that the Marlins were intent on keeping Uggla. They certainly wouldn’t part with him for Torrealba, who I think they lost interest in anyway.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 11:13 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Uggla for Torrealba...

lol, that would be the most lopsided trade in MLB history

by Narcoleptico on Nov 11, 2008 11:18 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

i didnt mean straight up

i just knew they were interested in him last year

by purplesocks on Nov 11, 2008 12:16 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently

you have little knowledge of the history of lopsided MLB trades.

by Tom (RFTN) on Nov 11, 2008 12:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

According to the folks on KOA’s morning show, the worst trade in MLB history happened between the Rockies and the A’s yesterday. Also, according to that same show, we’re getting some young outfielder named Carlos Gomez who isn’t anything special. Geez, you would think that the flagship station of the Rockies would at least get the names of the players involved in the trade right.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Nov 11, 2008 12:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Jim Armstrong

Also advocated giving Holliday a 7yr 140-150mil contract yesterday when trashing this trade. It seems wise to tie up such a large percentage of your payroll in 1 guy, particularly a corner OF with average defense.

by Hizilla on Nov 11, 2008 2:08 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

It's no wonder we have so many low info fans with media like this.

I keep looking at this trade and see a neutral talent exchange for next season when combined with simply dropping Taveras. They look at this trade and see that the Rockies aren’t the Yankees and it pisses them off. How do you deal with that kind of jealous anger? You can’t really argue with it, no the Rockies aren’t the Yankees and they won’t ever be the Yankees because MLB carefully controls who owns these teams, getting mad at the Monforts doesn’t really do anything to address that. Matt Holliday is no HOF player, what has he done to deserve an HOF contract? I expect fans to be emotional and reactionary, but media’s supposed to be able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and offer sound reason amidst the madness. Instead they’re intent to just join the mob. There is nothing sound in giving a corner that much money at the expense of the rest of the team. Lunacy. Yeah, we miss Matt Holliday, I would be happy if he was still a Rockie, but I know full well that his time with the team had run its course and now was the time to end it.

by Rox Girl on Nov 11, 2008 2:25 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Just heard Rick Reilly on PTI

and when they talked about the Holliday trade, it was the same exact thing from him. Granted, he’s not exactly “local” media anymore, but he’s well-known as a Denver guy. I really wish the media would put a little more thought into it. If they look at all side and still conclude it was a bad trade, fine. They’re job isn’t to be cheerleaders. But some attempt at objective analysis would be nice.

And on a related issue, I don’t know how anyone can be 100% certain in their judgment of any trade when we don’t yet know what additional moves will be made.

by holly96 on Nov 11, 2008 5:35 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen

I can’t listen to any of the Colorado sports media anymore, Tracy R excepted. I can’t waif for the day we can get a voice of responsible reporting as opposed to the voice of doom and gloom.

by dsmba on Nov 12, 2008 8:46 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

www.wikipedia.org/hyperbole

by Narcoleptico on Nov 11, 2008 3:42 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Rosenthal has more

Apparently the Rockies are looking at potentially flipping both Street and Gonzalez, talking to the Reds and Indians.

Should be interesting to see this go down.

by Roberbola on Nov 11, 2008 12:40 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Duuuuude

The Reds have a ton of prospects.

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 12:42 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I CAN HAZ JOHNNY CUETO?

Sorry, couldn’t resist a LOLCats reference when thinking about a potential haul from Cincy.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.

by Franchise26 on Nov 11, 2008 12:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

well played franchise26

well played. LOLCat references are always encouraged (at least by me)

by Resolution on Nov 11, 2008 5:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Of the teams that need a closer

I’m surprised that the Rays haven’t been mentioned more as a possible final destination point for Street.

The Rays have more starting pitching prospects than anyone.

They also need an outfielder, of which the Rockies now have an abundance.

Seems like there oughta be a fit there somewhere.

by maris61 on Nov 11, 2008 6:10 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of

excess out fielders, what happened to Cory Sullivan? I know he was sent down in August but did not get called back up. Did he have any options left? I would much rather have Spilly and S. Smith playing in the outfield but Sullivan has been up and down for a while and might be a small addition to a trade.

GO ROCKIES!!! JFK

by jrockies on Nov 11, 2008 6:23 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't Sullivan

making $1 million as a minor-leaguer last year?

He’d have been traded anywhere as a salary dump if he was trade material, but I would assume from last year that he has zero trade value.

by maris61 on Nov 11, 2008 7:28 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Sully

Cory was released by the Rockies in early October and is a free agent.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=1727#more-1727

by roxhead on Nov 11, 2008 11:02 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

trade done wednesday morning

if the results from physicals come back good

what would tt take to pry away nelson?

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081110&content_id=3673065&vkey=news_oak&fext=.jsp&c_id=oak

The Rockies have traded slugger Matt Holliday to the Athletics for closer Huston Street, left-handed starter Greg Smith and outfielder Carlos Gonzalez. With physicals having been accomplished on Tuesday, the trade could be announced as early as Wednesday, sources said.

Holliday was in Oakland on Tuesday to meet with club officials and undergo his physical.

“We are looking forward to having him,” A’s general manager Billy Beane was quoted as saying on Tuesday in the Denver Post.

The same is true of Smith, who was in Denver for his physical. The Rockies were watching closely, because Smith underwent surgery to remove loose bodies from his left elbow on Oct. 28.

According to a Rockies source, the club won’t announce the deal until they see the results of the physical. Smith is considered to be one of the keys to the deal for Colorado.

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 12, 2008 3:41 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

If Smith is the key...

They must know something we don’t.

This team is going to look very different next year, that’s for sure.

You know you want to check out Matt's Korea blog: http://koreamatt.wordpress.com

by MattTheRock on Nov 12, 2008 6:23 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

A's had the best offer

even the red sox think they paid a steep price
but from another perspetive A’s gave up 2 pitchers they had in house replacements for so lo consider that

http://www.boston.com/sports/b…extras/thebuzz/

Last updated: 11/11, 5:25 p.m.
Red Sox explored trade for Holliday
The Red Sox were briefly involved in trade talks with the Colorado Rockies on Matt Holliday according to a major league source, but bowed out once they heard Colorado’s steep asking price, the Globe’s Nick Cafardo reported.You could only imagine what the Rockies were seeking from the Sox given that they settled on an Oakland A’s package of reliever Huston Street, outfielder Carlos Gonzalez and pitcher Greg Smith. What would be the equivalent? Justin Masterson or Manny Delcarmen? Jacoby Ellsbury? Either Clay Buchholz or Michael Bowden? You can bet those players were likely discussed. The Red Sox certainly would have had the resources to sign Holliday long-term and agent Scott Boras would have likely preferred Boston over Oakland as a destination. Of course, there’s always the possibility Oakland flips him at the trading deadline next July if they’re not contending for a wild card/or AL West title.

by Asfan4ever723 on Nov 12, 2008 9:44 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Keith Law's take on the trade

Overall he says it is fair, and has a good evaluation of the A’s players we got in return.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3696174&name=law_keith

by Roberbola on Nov 12, 2008 11:15 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

What I like

Even if we cannot flip any of the players, they all fill holes. Holliday was going to be a tough move at the deadline. Teams overpay for pitching especially lefties, but the trend for hitters is that you give up a younger or cheaper guy that you think might thrive with a change of scenery. Look at what Cinci got for Dunn…very little.

If we could flip with Cinci, I really think that you could send Atkins, Barmes, and Smith for Harang and Homer Bailey. I know Homer is a guy they are flat out giving up on; they have no lefties in their rotation so Smith fits and he’s young and can be signed long term. Harang is a good pitcher but does them no good at the present and he’s only 9 million/year for the next 2 seasons with an option for 2011. I would like to see the Rocks have another rocket arm even if it translates to a few home runs here. Cinci is a team a lot like the rockies. 6 or 7 year contracts for players in their late 20’s are bad business. If they want to sign their two young pitchers long term, it would make sense they have to move Harang..

by brainteaser on Nov 13, 2008 9:11 AM MST reply actions 0 recs