Tuesday Morning Rockpile: The Matt Holliday Trade Watch

by Russ Oates on Nov 4, 2008 8:02 AM MST in Rockpile

Matt Holliday won't be in Denver this offseason, as he's moved closer to Scott Boras's Newport Beach, Ca. offices. But, in no way are we supposed to take that as an indication that Holliday won't be a Rockie soon. Possibly selling his house in Denver, on the other hand?

I'll buy into Holliday's decision to move to Newport Beach, so that he can train at the Sports Institute. At the same time, the article also mentions this:

But there is a feeling among his teammates that Holliday is ready to make the next move in his career. He was uncomfortable with growing talk about his contract situation during the summer and knows if he returns in 2009, there will be constant speculation.

If he's uncomfortable about talk surrounding his contract, how will Holliday feel if he comes to New York and discovers that the talk will be centered on more than just his contract? Maybe somewhere smaller will be a better fit for Matt . . . such as Oakland, whom Troy E. Renck believes could get involved.

Do you agree with Renck's assessment at the end of the last link?

There's no perfect deal when trading a star. But anything less than a good deal could set the Rockies back for years.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Huge-ness

It goes without saying that any deal with Big Daddy MUST return at least one, long-time, high quality MLB player. The Rockies have spent 10 years developing and paying him millions. To see him leave in a failed deal would be devastating. I’d rather take my chances with the 2 draft picks in 2010 if Dan can’t be greedy and demand a one-sided deal.

I’m talking about returning a player that no one would ever expect. Like a Roy Halladay. Toronto should be thinking like San Diego and their ace pitcher, Jake Peavy. They need to start over. The Yankees don’t have enough anywhere on their roster to even be in the running. Hughs and Cano? Sorry Charlie.. go to the back of the line.

Now it’s true the Rockies may have to include some of their own prospects to get a deal done, but so be it. Just do it and don’t screw it up because unlike Renck wrote. The Rockies don’t need a ‘good’ deal… they need a GREAT deal.

by roxhead on Nov 4, 2008 9:53 AM MST reply actions

Holliday trade

The Rockies find themselves with little talent at the upper ends of their minor league system, and not enough big money to play the other game of signing free agents (or in Holliday’s case re-signing)….so they have to trade and get in bodies…and quality bodies, or the Rockies will be also rans for quite some time.

Who’s a good match? I don’t know. But he is a super-star of rare quality, and needs to bring back a haul. Then O’dowd needs to draft and sign quality players going forward, or the team will find itself again in this position in the future. They have had too many busts drafting to stay competitive.

The part I don’t look forward to, is how is a team going to lose it’s 2 top hitters, and a league leader in stolen bases..and hope to get better?

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Nov 4, 2008 10:18 AM MST reply actions

Making the team better.

how is a team going to lose it’s 2 top hitters, and a league leader in stolen bases..and hope to get better?

By replacing those players with better ones? Okay, so that’s not really possible in the case of Holliday, but your putting him in the same category with the other two is kind of silly also. Replacing Taveras with Fowler is completely painless for me and I think most Rockies fans. Atkins in 2008 was no longer the Rockies second best hitter, he might not be our fifth best hitter next season (OPS+ had Holliday, Iannetta, Spilborghs, Hawpe, Helton, Smith, Barmes and Baker all outhitting him last season) and he’s going to bring back a return from some other team as if he was our second best hitter. Again, I think that’s an easy call and a pretty clear move which can make the team better. Holliday and Fuentes, however, are in a different category. I’m hoping that the windfall talent profit from dealing Atkins makes up for some of the loss we’re going to take with dealing Holliday, and that all the moves combined somehow scrounge up a worthy reliever (really, it shouldn’t be that hard). I actually see less hope of the Rockies getting better by standing pat, as then we’d be talking about a situation where we wait several years in the hope that our draft picks from letting these guys walk as free agents will eventually save us. That’s another five to six year plan? No thank you.

by Rox Girl on Nov 4, 2008 11:32 AM MST up reply actions

I hope I'm wrong

But I don’t see any way that we are better next year if Holliday is gone, unless he returns a legit ace (and I’m not holding my breath on DO’D getting that done). I was in Denver for the weekend with my buddy who goes to pretty much every game and lives and breathes the Rockies and baseball in general, and we talked a lot of trade stuff. And neither of us could come up with a compelling case for the Rox being better next year, especially considering that its unlikely the division will be nearly as bad. So the upshot, I guess, is that I’m hopeful of a great offseason and some reasons to be optimistic…but I fully expect next year will be called “rebuilding” but will really be just not very competitive.

Fortunately, its a long offseason and there’s plenty of time to drink the kool-aid.

by Teekalong on Nov 4, 2008 4:08 PM MST up reply actions

Examples

Both Jair Jurrgens and Matt Garza were traded last offseason.

Both were very talented pitchers ready for the big leagues but who were not yet established as MLB pitchers.

The obvious focus of those trades was upon the future impact that those two pitchers would make but both had a strong positive impact even in thier first season with the new club.

Pitchers who are rumored to be available this offseason who have the potential to make a similar impact include guys like Phil Hughes and Clay Buccholz, several of the arms that the Marlins have ferried up and down between the minors and the bigs the last year or two, perhaps a guy like Nick Adenhart, Cueto from the Reds, etc.

by MADness on Nov 4, 2008 5:31 PM MST up reply actions

I'm sure Oakland fans felt the same way

about Giambi when he moved on, and again with Tejada when he too left the club, yet Oakland continued to find success in reaching the postseason.

Minnesota was supposedly punting on ’08 when it moved Santana, yet it was right in the mix with a play-in game in October.

Bottom line, the success of this team does not hinge on one player. After all, he did have a solid year this year, and the Rockies finished 14 games below .500. He’s gone after this next season, and the longer it takes for colorado to move on, the less they are likely to get back.

Keeping Holliday closes the window. It’s what desperate teams do when they sense their fate is slipping. Bold teams refuse to close the window, and realize the importance of constant roster turnover. Oakland was a successful team this decade using pre-peak to peak players when they were cost effective, and used these guys to bring in a volume of similar peak players when they were no longer financially viable.

by David OhNo on Nov 4, 2008 6:50 PM MST up reply actions

The difference

is that Oakland and Minny have been competitive for a long time; their playoff runs did not come on the back of one MVP type season (and an unprecedented winning streak). The analogy just doesn’t fit.

If the argument is that the franchise is better off in the long run trading Holliday, I certainly don’t disagree. But if the argument is that trading Holliday somehow “keeps a window open” I think its crazy. No Holliday (and no trade for an instant impact star of similar caliber) — no window at all.

I don’t oppose a Holliday deal, but lets be real about it. Its another new start, not a move designed to make the team better next year. No delusions of grandeur that Iannetta, Stewart and Fowler are going to each be superstars in 2009.

by Teekalong on Nov 4, 2008 11:00 PM MST up reply actions

Franchise strength

Wow, its good to know that O’Dowd can just give Matty away if he wants and it won’t matter one bit.

Sounds like something the Nuggets might do. Oh wait, they already did…

by roxhead on Nov 5, 2008 12:14 AM MST up reply actions

Yeah, um

Great. I have pretty much zero faith that O’Dowd will get the kind of massive return I want if we trade Holliday.

Blast and botheration.

by Silverblood on Nov 4, 2008 11:10 AM MST reply actions

Based on what?

A general sense of pessimism? So O’Dowd’s small off-season moves didn’t pay off too well last season, but can we not give him credit for De La Rosa? Taylor Buccholz? Procurring and locking up Cook, Tulo, Hawpe? Encouraging play for Iannetta, Stewart?

The last time O’Dowd had to make a highly unpopular trade (of the team’s first homegrown “ace” no less), he received a key role player in the World Series team (Taveras), a pitcher that has now become a key factor in the bullpen (Buccholz) and a young pitcher that is still very much a wild card (Hirsh). The pitcher he dealt? We haven’t heard from him since, and may never again.

Considering the tight budget O’Dowd has to work with, his recent work has been decent and he seems set on a plan now. If you care to disparage O’Dowd, you could at least be specific.

by David OhNo on Nov 4, 2008 6:37 PM MST up reply actions

Jennings

The Jennings trade was a very good trade for the Rockies, both at the time and in hindsight.

Sure, the Rockies weren’t able to directly replace the contributions of Jennings with one of the players that they acquired in that trade but they DID significantly increase the talent level of the club when compared to what it would have been had they kept Jennings (even if he had stayed healthy).

No one that the Rockies can acquire is going to completely replace the contributions of Holliday but the Rockies once again have an opportunity to greatly improve the team by trading away a valuable player who is not part of the long-term future of the team.

by MADness on Nov 4, 2008 6:56 PM MST up reply actions

It will take a combination of trades and signings

to make a real difference on paper. The free agency route may be the ultimate hang up, but in that regard, it’s hard to hammer O’Dowd if he isn’t given the proper financial tools to win here. His judgment will come with what is brought in through trade, and in that regard, he’s been pretty good in the past.

by David OhNo on Nov 4, 2008 7:06 PM MST up reply actions

It will take a combination of trades and signings

to make a real difference on paper. The free agency route may be the ultimate hang up,

I totally agree. I see a lot of talent going out. We can’t know of course what is coming back in return. But the Rockies in 08 were on the wrong side of mediocrity, and I’m afraid that if we don’t get back more than we send out in talent they will once again, be on the wrong side of average.

And I think free agency will be key to bringing in talent and filling out holes. The key will be how much the Rockies are willing to spend.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Nov 4, 2008 8:40 PM MST reply actions