Friday Rockpile: Outflanking in the outfield

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 8:20 AM MST in Rockpile Comment 33 comments

One clear theme that emerged in the Matt Holliday trade rumors that came out during the GM meetings this week are that the Rockies are a little more confident in their rotation for next season than they were during the summer, but perhaps less confident that Seth Smith could be an everyday left fielder. While the Rockies and all teams will always be in search for more pitching, the ready-now imperative seems to have been put on the back-burner. A look at the prominent rumors over the last few days reveals a pattern:

Holliday to the Rays for outfielder Carl Crawford and prospects
Holliday to the Cardinals for outfielder Ryan Ludwick and prospects
Holliday to the Phillies for outfielder Shane Victorino or Jayson Werth and prospects

Separately, there was also the Garrett Atkins for outfielder Michael Cuddyer look-see and news that Eric Young Jr. has been getting work in center field, which mostly seems to be prepping him for a Chone Figgins like super-utility role, but also could foreshadow an alignment that would push Ryan Spilborghs back to left field if the Rockies don't get an outfielder in an Atkins or Holliday deal. While this isn't a grand revelation, it all indicates that the Rockies are looking to replace a sizable portion of Holliday's production in the lineup. O'Dowd's ideal opening day lineup now seems to have Spilborghs (or Crawford in the unlikely event we deal Matt to Tampa) in center, replacement outfielder X in left and Smith as a left handed sub/pinch hitter.

The upshot of going after these players would be that the offensive upgrade in center over Taveras would make up for the smaller drop in production in left field, leaving us with an outfield that could very well outproduce the one we had in 2008, even without Holliday. Added to the likely upgrade in the infield with Stewart and expected rebounds from Tulowitzki and Helton, these scenarios do seem to present somewhat of a cure for our everyday offensive blues. What about the rotation, though? Is O'Dowd ignoring that at the team's peril? I don't believe so. All the players involved in these rumors come back at salaries below what Atkins and Holliday are expected to earn in 2009, and added to Stewart's near minimum cost, our third base/left field combo will come in significantly below what Garrett and Matt earned in 2008. Cuddyer's due $6.75 million in 2009, $8.5 million in 2010 and has a team option for $10.5 million in 2011. Werth is entering his second season of arbitration eligibility, Victorino and Ludwick their first. Crawford's due $8.25 million in 2009 and has a $10 million club option for 2010. Holliday and Atkins earned just under $14 million in 2008, so at a minimum, the club will have $5 million leftover to spend. That's not a lot in today's baseball, but figure that the Rockies budget probably allows for what Atkins+Holliday were expected to make in 2009, which would leave the salary difference closer to the $10 to $14 million range.

Those cost savings could easily be passed on to a pretty decent cog in the rotation, perhaps even fill multiple pitching needs if allocated wisely. The other thing that these moves buy is some time to let players like Young and Dexter Fowler and whatever prospects are received in these moves to develop in AAA while maintaining a relatively competitive ballclub. Depending on what the team did with the pitching, the Rockies wouldn't be too far off from LA or Arizona at that point, but with more reinforcements than either of those teams close at hand. If O'Dowd could pull it off, this would be a having-our-cake-and-eating-it-too scenario and kudos to him. The gamble is that opposing teams don't ante up and O'Dowd gets forced into a pennies on the dollar type of deal when he runs out of time. I think the result of the offseason will go one way or the other, I'm not seeing a lot of middle ground here.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Holy Cow

Why in the hell would a Holliday trade even involve Ryan Ludwick? That is nuts. 1) He’s two years older than Holliday, with success only coming recently. Which makes sense, because he should hit his peak around 28, which is what he did, and then he will decline. The decline may come later because his career started later, but the chance of him outlasting even Hawpe is unlikely. 2) His K/BB is 2.3/1. 3) His BABIP is .350, which is certain to regress. This would be the equivalent of trading Holliday for Greg Vaughn circa 2000. The prospect would have to be top notch, and unless Colby Rasmus or Jess Todd is included, this can’t make sense.

by deacs on Nov 7, 2008 10:05 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

I've got some of the same concerns

Ludwick certainly isn’t a buy low type of deal, but both parties seem to understand that his true value is somewhat less than what he showed in 2008, as all of the whispers have had this be a Ludwick plus sort of return for the Rockies. Given Ludwick’s season and popularity in St. Louis, I actually think if a deal is worked out, it would be Holliday plus a minor prospect or two for Ludwick plus a major prospect or two, to make it appear on the surface to be less lopsided in STL. Todd could very well be involved, but it looks like Rasmus wouldn’t be.

Cardinals fans hate this from their end, it seems most Rockies fans don’t like it from ours, which means both fanbases are probably overvaluing their asset more than usual.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 10:17 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Overvalued

Holliday is probably overvalued by Rockies fans (and some others around the league), but if he’s in a more consistent lineup he’ll probably put up phenomenal numbers (like last season) and be an integral second-part to an offense, sort of how Utley is regarded in Philadelphia. But if Holliday is overvalued at all, Ludwick is certainly well overvalued. Holliday’s value, any way measured, is comprehensively greater than Ludwick’s: younger, faster, better OBP, better fielder and likely more power over a long period of time. Also, Ludwick will probably cost $12-14M in a couple of years for a declining product. For $6-8M more, Holliday is a greater long-term investment (though for a wealthier team than the Rockies, which is why he should be traded this offseason).

by deacs on Nov 7, 2008 1:55 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

On defense...

As David has been mentioning in other threads, that’s where another critical downside to this strategy comes into play. A worst case post-trade defensive scenario, something along the lines of a Hawpe/Spilly/Ludwick alignment could cost the team up to eighty runs over the course of the season. That’s not likely, but the possibility with those three is there. If the team can keep the defensive liability in the outfield in 2009 to less than fifty runs, than the offensive gains should make up for it, and added to positives on both sides of the ball in the infield should keep us competitive in this division. Pitchers will definitely have incentive to keep contact on the ground and in the infield, though.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 10:09 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

How is Ludwick a defensive liability?

I don’t understand the comments made by many that Ludwick would be a defensive liability if this deal gets done (which personally, I think is unlikely anyway). Ludwick is a better defensive outfielder than Holliday. He’s good enough that TLR trusted him with 86 innings in CF over the last 2 years, and in those 86 innings had a perfect 1.000 RZR.

This past season, Ludwick’s Revised Zone Ratings were better than Holliday’s, regardless of which outfield position he manned, while Holliday only had to work on trying to perfect LF.

I just don’t understand the claims of defensive ineptitude for Ludwick. I guarantee that he could man LF at Coors more than adequately.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Nov 8, 2008 3:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

There are a couple of factors at play.

First of all, Coors Field’s outfield has a defensive park factor that makes our outfielders’ zone ratings (and stats based off of those) worse than reality. Dan Fox at Baseball Prospectus had an article about this a couple of years ago before he went to work for the Pirates, I’ll have to try and find it. Brad Hawpe’s still terrible, but he’s not as terrible as these numbers make him out to be. Taveras is probably a better example, but the same goes with Holliday. That said Ludwick’s RZR is much better than I assumed it would be, and I must confess that I actually didn’t look it up first. Based on his scouting reports, body type and his injury history (hip problems are always bad) he profiles as a bad glove, but he did come up as an centerfielder with the A’s and Rangers, and apparently he hasn’t lost as much as scouts anticipated. Given that hip thing, there’s an inevitability in the degeneration of his defensive skills and he’s on the wrong side of thirty to assume that he’ll be able to sustain them for very long, particularly given how much running he’s going to have to do in Coors and the recovery effects of playing at altitude. It’s not that hard to prognosticate a steep drop in his RZR in 2009 should this trade be made. It’s much harder to assume he’ll maintain it.

by Rox Girl on Nov 8, 2008 5:10 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Cards...

Most here probably won’t agree, but I’d consider 3 years of control of Ludwick for 1 year of Holliday to not be so bad—even without the prospects. Throw in some decent prospects and that would be a nice deal. Keep in mind that Holliday will have zero value to whoever trades for him in 2010 and 2011. I actually don’t understand why the Cards would do it—unless they seriously think they have a shot at the pennant next year or really think they can outbid the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets…et al. for Holliday in a year.

Ludwick was a late bloomer in part because of injuries and while I think he probably won’t repeat his performance of last year, I think he will still be very productive.

Reading the article, I got the impression that Ludwick was pure speculation on the part of the writer rather than a leaked name.

by DenverBears on Nov 7, 2008 10:16 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it was total speculation...

Ludwick is rumored to being dangled from multiple sources, both in Denver and St. Louis.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 10:19 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't get why Atkins and some others

think that by trading Holliday the team is going into firesale mode. Last time I checked we still control Tulo and Iannetta for the long term. Very few other teams in the majors are set at C and SS like the Rockies. The offense will take a hit from losing Holliday but he wasn’t great in 2008 anyways, and I think we can make up some of that from Tulo bouncing back, Stewart progressing, and not giving Willy T 500 at bats. Hell if we got Ludwick back I could see our 2009 offense being better than this years version.

Pitching wise, pretty much everyone not named Cook had a bad year, and you would have to think that Francis + one of the AAA trio will bounce back and be at least average in the back end of the rotation. The bullpen is actually a big concern for me, but if we trade Holliday and Atkins we are going to free up some payroll that we could use to address some holes there (of course D O D doesn’t seem to do all that well when he actually has money to spend on the bullpen). Maybe Viz has a bounce back year?

So yeah, we are going to have to get some bounce back years from a bunch of our guys who underperformed last year, but has anyone seen the the rest of the NL West? I mean SD is cutting payroll to $40 million, the Giants still don’t have a great offense and seem intent on giving a bad contract to someone like Pat Burrell, and the D Backs have to wonder whether the likes of JUp, CY, and Reynolds are really going to be good players. I’m worried about the Dodgers but I think we are right there behind them.

Second half run?

by moomacher on Nov 7, 2008 11:01 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

A firesale

will be an apt description if Ludwick is the major league centerpiece for the Holliday trade. The offense will be pretty good, but it will strike out a ton and still lack a marquee power hitter. Also, the range of the defense will be frighteningly bad. If Holliday goes to the Cardinals, I’d rather have Ankiel be the major league return. He has the potential to be an equitable offensive force and is a better defender than both Holliday and Ludwick.

The team won’t be gutted if Atkins and Holliday are both traded, but it will be handicapped similar to the A’s and Twins were this year. However, I’d rather have that than an aging, de-valued Atkins and a player that ownership won’t be able to resign in Holliday. Also, Vizcaino should be traded for Heilman, who the Rockies love and the Mets want to get rid of.

by deacs on Nov 7, 2008 1:48 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Key difference between us and the A's/Twins

Is that neither of those teams play in the NL West, which makes it easier to stay competitive despite the handicap. I keep looking at the Diamondbacks and Dodgers and just don’t see them taking major steps forward this winter. At best they’re treading water.

While I’d also rather have Ankiel, Ludwick isn’t nearly the drag you purport him to be, as he’d be your marquee power hitter, he just wouldn’t be the power plus average combination that Holliday was. The lineup would strike out a lot, but it would also walk a lot, which would be a key distinction between us and the D-backs, I might add. Fewer outs given away will lead to a lot more runs. I mean, I can’t emphasize this enough, our opening day 2008 lineup had a guy who put up a .293 OBP at catcher, one who put up a .308 OBP in center and a guy with a .328 OBP at third. In the Ludwick trade scenario we’d have a 2008 .390 OBP player at catcher, a .407 OBP in center and a .349 OBP at third. And where we would expect to take a hit, Holliday’s .409 OBP, we’ll replace with a guy who put up a .375 figure last season and who shouldn’t be too far south of that in 2009 (he won’t have the same year, but he is coming to Coors). There’s just too much improvement to label this a fire sale.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 3:07 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The Twins

played in division with much parity, though not quite as much as the NL West. I’m not suggesting that Ludwick would be a drag in 2009, I’m suggesting he would be a drag starting in 2010 probably. And then what? Trade him at diminished value? If the St. Louis trade requires something else besides Holliday for Ludwick/good prospect, the Rockies would already be getting the short end of the stick in the long run, as the giving up a decent prospect with Holliday minimizes the return of the Cards’ good prospect.

Ludwick will be a good player for two years. After that, hes likely to regress significantly. Prior to this season, his career MLB OBP: .319 in 637 ABs. For posterity, his lone complete AAA season had him at a .342 OBP with a 3.5/1 K/BB ratio. Not bad, but not a great indicator for sustained ML success at 30. Plus,he strikes out like a fiend and doesn’t make up for it with Dunn/Howard-esque walks. Plus, there will be a defensive downgrade, and the internal options to fill CF right now don’t make up for the substandard range in LF and RF with Ludwick and Hawpe.

by deacs on Nov 7, 2008 4:11 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with a large part of your assertion,

But there are parts I disagree strongly with. Ludwick’s MLB career breaks into two phases, the first four seasons when he was struggling to break in, and then the last two seasons with St. Louis (you probably have to include that 2006 season in Toledo with this) where he seems to have had a post injury moment of clarity. Ludwick’s strike zone judgment has taken a major step forward, he couldn’t have put up the kind of season he had in 2008 without that. Ignoring what he did last season to prove that he’s junk is just as bad as over-emphasizing it to prove that he’s an MLB elite. Instead, he’s a classic late bloomer who had a career derailed by injuries but got it back on course. Coming up in the minors scouts compared his bat to Paul Konerko’s, and though it’s taken awhile to get there, that’s essentially where he’s come. I think a good example of this type of player might be Kevin Millar, who had a couple of stellar years with the Marlins when he was 29 and 30, but otherwise has been just a useful player, I don’t think projecting a steep regression in 2010 for Ludwick is that clear a case. Plate discipline has been shown to be an acquirable skill, and it looks like that could be what’s happened with him. He’s always had the natural power, so don’t be too quick to disparage that.

I never said the Rockies give up a decent prospect with Holliday, I said they give up a minor prospect, which means a depth player, somebody who has surface value but might not fit into our long range plans. Let’s say the deal is Holliday and Daniel Mayora for Ludwick, Jess Todd and Jonathan Jay. Or substitute Chris Perez for Todd. How does that give the Rockies the short end of the stick?

I’m suggesting he would be a drag starting in 2010 probably. And then what? Trade him at diminished value?

Yes. If you’re right and Ludwick does go Jeff Cirillo on us, there will still be some GM hoping he can return to the glory he had in 2008 on the cheap and we still should wind up with a fairly decent trade. I think the downside here isn’t enough to take the Ludwick option off the table and the upside (Ludwick repeats 2008 at Coors, Todd becomes a rotation mainstay) is significant.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 5:46 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Touche

on the Jeff Cirillo angle. Especially because the years Cirillo was with the Rockies were a wasteland, and basically Jamey Wright, Henry Blanco, and Andrew Miller eventually netted an All-Star reliever (Fuentes), whom we got many valuable years of service out of, and will likely net the Rockies two draft picks.

The main problem I have with Ludwick is the risk involved with a “late bloomer.” If he turns out to be a Luis Gonzales bat (albeit without the 50 HR seasons), then that is awesome. But if we’re getting the guy who strikes out 160+ times and OBPs .330, then even with Perez or Todd, it’s a bust. It’d make more sense to get Crawford+.

by deacs on Nov 8, 2008 12:48 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

And that's where we come to figuring out how to make the trade

Although it’s by the thinnest of margins, I’d be okay taking the Ludwick risk with Todd or Perez as hedges, but certainly not with Boggs and Schumaker. I could see why others such as yourself would still see the risk as too high with my preferred pitchers however. The problem I have, though, is that St. Louis is just trying to scrape the bare minimum for a trade, and given the interest in Holliday, there must be a better offer to be found out there.

by Rox Girl on Nov 8, 2008 2:31 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Boom.

Agreed. That is the heart of the argument. Also, as good a pitcher as Perez is, he’s a reliever-only, where the Rocks should be looking for a young starter prospect, who can go either way (no pun intended).

I just don’t want find out that Ludwick is Bernard Gilkey, even if he’s just meant to be replacement-level adequate for three years and not the main point of the trade.

by deacs on Nov 8, 2008 2:40 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Crawford

A main argument for Crawford, to me, is that he would be ideal to hit leadoff for the Rockies, filling two huge needs (solid defense + .330-.340 from leadoff) if Holliday goes. Plus, there’s a greater surplus of really good pitching prospects to come with him. I guess we’d have to hope Ianetta can build on 2008 and Tulo will rebound, but we’re betting on those things either way.

by deacs on Nov 8, 2008 2:52 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Phillies

If I’m trading Holliday to the Phillies, I’m only doing it if I’m getting Carrasco and Michael Taylor and if I’m trading with the Cardinals it’s only for Jaime Garcia and Colby Rasmus.

by Resolution on Nov 7, 2008 12:45 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

actual value

I agree with what a few others have said above. The problem is Holliday although a great player and the face of the franchise is going to leave due to free agency if we don’t trade him this off season. Most teams out there know that they would only be able to have him for a year before he takes off to yet another team, so in reality Holliday’s value is not as high as I or any other Rockie fan would want it to be. I am also perplexed by the Cardnials and any other team that does not have the capital of the YANKS or Red Sox going after him.

So I am starting to see the value of the Cardnials trade we would get a decent offensive player, for a couple years while Dexter Flower and EY Jr. are still develping. If we could get one of these prospect pitchers to sweeten the deal I am sold. We still have the chip of Atkins that could net us some good prospect pitchers too.

by RockiesDave on Nov 7, 2008 2:05 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Holliday's value

is for a team that thinks it’ss one guy away from a pennant, and/or if the team thinks they have a legit shot of convincing Holliday to stay and re-sign with them after they see how great their team/fans/city is. The Cardinals really work on both of those. They are close to the winning the mediocre NL Central and really want that #2 impact bat to go with Pujols.

But the real key is St. Louis is close to being able to pay like the large market team. They have a new stadium, draw incredible, and have a decent TV market. Matty is from Stillwater, OK, and seems to be a laid back family guy, that might not want the bright lights of New York or Chicago, or Boston. The next team after the top 7…might be St. Louis or Houston, but Houston has El Cabio, so they don’t need a LF. I can see Holliday in St. Louis real easily, and I assume, so can the Cardinals brass.

Now….I want Rasmus, and lesser pieces, but Ankiel, would be good too. Ankiel has very good range, a plus arm, power, and would allow Spilly move to LF.

I love the hot stove league.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Nov 7, 2008 2:39 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much that's where we have to start

We could hope that multiple teams bidding on him drive up the price from there, but there’s no guarantee that happens. Is Ludwick plus a prospect better than one year of Holliday and the two 2010 draft picks for letting him walk? Probably, so long as the salary difference this year is actually turned into something useful. So you’ve got to leave that on the table. Werth plus Carrasco? At the end of the day I’d be satisfied with that trade as the bottom line is that it makes the Rockies better in 2010/2011 but doesn’t completely sacrifice 2009 to get there. An insistence that we rape our trading partners of everything they have for Matt doesn’t serve the Rockies well here, and there should be a path to a solid return if we keep our options open.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 2:43 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm starting to warm up to Ankiel

For a couple of reasons – 1) He is a great candidate to replace some of Holliday’s production, if have more faith in him repeating 2008 than I do in Ludwick. 2) He’s a free agent after 2009, which means we would get back the picks we lose by trading Holliday way early (assuming Ankiel would be a type A which is a pretty good bet). 3) I’m not certain how good he is defensively, but he’s certainly better than Ludwick. An OF of Spilly/Ankiel/Hawpe is a lot less scary than Ludwick/Spilly/Hawpe.

I would think his cost would be lower than Ludwick given that he is essentially a one-year rental like Holliday. Would Ankiel + Rasmus + prospect be too much to ask for Holliday?

by Roberbola on Nov 7, 2008 3:07 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

yes, it would.

I wish we could quit getting distracted by the shiny object (Rasmus), as one of the reasons the Cardinals are rumored to be moving either or both of Ludwick and Ankiel is to give him a slot in the lineup. It defeats that purpose for them to deal him away at the same time. I’d look at a return of Ankiel plus Jess Todd plus Jonathan Jay or Kyle Russell as more in line with where the Cardinals would be willing to stretch. I think even that’s a tempting deal from our end.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 3:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll ignore Rasmus if/when

the Cardinals become the only suitor for Holliday, until then, Holliday’s value is connected to his market value, and the going rate shouldn’t be a 30 year old coming off a career year and change. With names like Cano and Carrasco having been floated out by sources, the prospect of Ludwick coming in simply doesn’t match the present/future value of the others. Especially when Ludwick is a rough fit at best.

As far as I can tell, Rasmus was ruled out by Ringolsby because he hits left handed, which would make Ankiel a non-starter in trade talks. Plus/minus suggests Ankiel might be the most overhyped outfielder in the national league, as a -15 centerfielder. Ankiel (sliding to a corner)/Spilborghs/Hawpe is not much differen than Ludwick/Spilborghs/Hawpe until you weigh offensive value, and Ludwick was almost twice as valuable as Ankiel last year in VORP.

Lastly, when I look at Phillies rumors, I think they still have more to offer. Werth has a much lower profile, but he was one of the few Phillies to actually hit better away from home, and all things considered, I’d almost put even money on Werth to perform as good as Ludwick next year from a per appearance standpoint. Werth is a pretty good defender with a plus arm and decent speed, and his plus/minus numbers (though expected to take a slight dip moving from Philly to Colorado) are good for a swing outfielder that can fill multiple positions.

Best about that rumored deal is that Werth is a complementary piece to Carrasco, who trumps any Cards pitching prospect. Plus, I think the Rockies could still get Donald and Happ by adding talent on their end. Really, when you look at it, the Phillies could be game for an Atkins/Holliday package. Could the Rockies package Holliday and Atkins for Carrasco, Werth, Donald, and Happ? That’s plugging a lot of holes on the very cheap. Werth only has one year remaining before hitting arbitration (I believe) but the Rockies could look to extend him.

Lastly, I don’t dislike Ludwick from a baseball standpoint. He has had the talent to be a good player and he will stay a good player. I do think he’ll regress, but he should be a fine starter for many teams. That said, I’ m not crazy about his defensive fit. The Rockies are going to have to build a team that has a chance at “exceeding its pythag” and while you can’t predict such a thing, you can take cues from others, and the two best ways to outplay your expected totals is to play great defense and a have a great bullpen. Ludwick just doesn’t appear to me to be a guy that is good for Coors’ left field. I also look at it from this analogy.

Trading Holliday is like getting a “$100 gift certificate” to shop at one of the interested team’s rosters. Because of last year, Ludwick may carry an enflated sticker price of $75, which is nice, but it only leaves you $25 left to spend on the rest of the trade pieces. Or you can go to the Phillies and buy Jayson Werth for $50 and use the other $50 for better fits. That’s a pretty loose analogy, i know, but I think you guys get the picture.

by David OhNo on Nov 7, 2008 7:56 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying I don't like the Philly idea more, I do

If it’s just Werth plus Carrasco I’d be happy, and Werth plus Carrasco plus Happ would be even better, and both those deals are better than Ludwick plus Todd plus Jay. If it becomes a real offer from Philadelphia’s end, we have to prefer it over St. Louis’ and go back to them to bring something better to the table. I’ve been defending Ludwick because people seem to be taking it to an extreme the other direction in devaluing him. Even the one clear weakness to his game, the defense, isn’t nearly the liability some are making it out to be. It’s my opinion that in a Hawpe/Spilborghs/Ludwick outfield he should be the smallest negative, but that’s not really saying much. Of greater concern to me would be elevating the defensive play of the two current Rockies.

Since I do like it better, I wish we would talk more about the Philadelphia rumor, so I’m glad you brought it up. Like you, I think Werth is likely to have as much value at the plate as Ludwick over the next few seasons even if 2008 did show that Ludwick capable of higher peaks. The key difference in the trade value would be Carrasco, who could allow the Rockies to deal a quality pitcher in a couple of years because we’ll have arms to spare. It’s the type of deal that could help set up an ideal alignment to help fuel a decade long run, particularly if Morales is able to rebound next season.

I don’t think it’s real yet, the Phillies have to see where they are with Burrell first, but it’s looking likely that Pat’s moving on and then things could get really interesting.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 8:23 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

One more note on Ludwick

IF he becomes a Rockie, he should play right field. Ludwick’s arm stats ranked at the top of plus/minus’s arm ratings, and you don’t need stats to see how accurate his howitzer is. Sure Hawpe’s arm ain’t bad, but his release has grown long and his accuracy has tailed off to the point he’s fallen behind the pack in terms of being a threat with his arm.

Also, assuming Ludwick comes in, could the rockies be tempted to listen on Hawpe. His defense was horrid last year and his comments towards O’Dowd were highlighted in several outlets last year. My guess would be in this scenario, Hawpe is shopped once Fowler proves ready to unseat Spilborghs in center.

Okay, back to Philly, I think the Rockies may force them to move quickly. If I may read optimistically between the lines, O’Dowd is looking to settle everything on the trade front before jumping into FA and the winter meetings, so he has an idea of what amount of money he has to play with and where his needs are. I thought O’Dowd seemed pretty aggressive in the GM meetings and indications are he’s hoping to move quickly on Holliday. If the Phillies are to get in on this, they can’t wait out Burrell and put O’Dowd in a bind. Bottom line, I expect the Rockies to spend some money this year (especially that earmarked for Funetes and Holliday) and the sooner he knows it’s there the better he can prepare his plans for the winter meetings.

by David OhNo on Nov 7, 2008 8:36 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

As the resident Morales apologist,

I thought I would mention his last outing in the Venezuelan Winter League. He went 6 IP’s, only throwing 74 pitches, 52 of those for strikes. He only gave up 2 hits, both in the same inning, both singles, and he did not have any walks or HBP’s. He struck out 4, and threw 1st pitch strikes to 13/20 . I know many will be worried about his GO/FO ratio of 4/10, but I saw some soft popups and some lineouts. I would love to see Morales make a nice comeback this year, and I think he can.

On another note, I don’t remember what happened w/ Hawpe and O’Dowd, what comments are you referring to?

by smokinRox on Nov 7, 2008 10:01 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The Hawpe comment

can be found in this link.

As for Morales, I think he can find his way back to the bigs this year, but the Rockies would be wise to plan as if Morales will not be making a contribution, rather than expecting it this year.

by David OhNo on Nov 8, 2008 12:09 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Ankiel

Upside: I’d like to see him unleash that outfield arm for our benefit. As i recall, he had 2 of the sickest throws ever against us this year in one game; the downside: cheater, and we have to hear the story about his “return to glory” about a billion times.

Maybe this deal isn’t the worst we could do (I’ll wait for DO’D to prove me right on that) but man it would make me sad. Ugh. For all the fun this hot-stove stuff is, I’d prefer last year’s preseason mentality of “maybe we didn’t do enough but we’ll still be really competitive” to this year’s effort to talk myself into thingking we might be ok through a laundry list of excuses and hoping desperately that all the other teams in our division suck worse than they did this year.

by Teekalong on Nov 7, 2008 5:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm looking at this as just the start to the hot stove league.

You need the Ludwick idea out there so other GM’s who like Holliday decide that they might be able to package something better or more appealing to the Rockies. It’s not the ideal trade for me, but it is a passable one. I’d give it a C- or maybe a little higher depending on what/who else was involved.

It’s so odd to me that your more pessimistic this season than last, when our big trade was dealing Jamey Carrol for Sean “currently minor league free agent” Smith and we had Yorvit and Jayson Nix in the starting lineup. I guess the World Series will do that to you. It probably would have done the same to me, but I’m almost always wearing purple colored glasses in the offseason.

by Rox Girl on Nov 7, 2008 6:02 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I was pessimistic last year

about the rotation and about Nix/Willy for sure. I didn’t like losing Kaz and I hated the inaction in the rotation (and that’s back when I still thought Francis was really good). However, as you say, the WS made anything seem possible. Now, we’re talking about ditching our best player for Ryan Freaking Ludwick or some other guy that will be forgotten by his current team as soon as he leaves (and prospects! of course)….oh, and the rotation doesn’t look that much better to me —and the bullpen worse.

I agree that SD will be terrible. But I think AZ should be about the same or better; and SF finished only 2 games behind us despite their ludicrously bad offense. Next year, I see them improving, only because their pitching will still be great and their offense has to get better. Also, I fully expect some legit moves from LA. If Holliday is not traded for a legit player (better than Ludwick) we are going to be picked to finish 3rd at best in the division next year, and possibly 4th.

I remain hopeful that DO’D will make some moves to change my opinion.

by Teekalong on Nov 7, 2008 6:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick

If Ludwick is the centerpiece of a deal for Holliday it’s more than likely a failed trade. Not to knock Ludwick and not to say that he can’t be good but if you really look at his numbers, it suggests that he was very lucky last year and is probably more of a .260avg and 25 hrs guy. His price tag is very inflated right now. Also, I think the Rockies need to focus on pitching more. I’d go for Ankiel depending who else is in the deal because despite him being similar to Ludwick his price wouldn’t be inflated like Ludwick’s.

by Resolution on Nov 7, 2008 5:39 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick

Ludwick had a nice year, and you can make the claim that he has had a few solid years in a row after struggling with injuries, rather than 2008 being a complete anomaly. But let’s not forget that he had the kind of season he had this year while hitting behind Albert Pujols. At the same time Holliday was the bat in the Rockies lineup everyone was attempting to pitch around and he still got his numbers. I have less faith that Ludwick could carry an offense like Holliday did at times. Meanwhile, Holliday should put up some truly sick numbers behind Pujols.

by Fos on Nov 7, 2008 7:04 PM MST reply actions 0 recs