Friday Rockpile: Atkins staying put; 9th starter Redding or Marquis

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 8:16 AM MST in Rockpile Comment 26 comments

Tracy Ringolsby reports that the Rockies are hanging onto Garrett Atkins not only as Todd Helton insurance, but also for a second reason that I hadn't previously associated with our incumbent third baseman, that uncertainty over Jeff Francis means that the team doesn't know if it will be needing to trade Atkins for a veteran mid-rotation starting pitcher. Of course, the problem with this line of argument from the team is that all the rumors around Atkins to date have been with the Rockies being rebuffed in their attempts to pry pitching as part of the deal. There is one significant shift here, however, in that all those previous rumors had the Rockies looking at budding top of the rotation types rather than veterans in the middle. While they were looking for a team to overpay during the winter, it seems during the season they will understand what a more realistic expected return for Atkins should look like.

The Helton back situation is an important one. Helton's primary substitute in a post-Atkins world would be Jeff Baker, who projects to see a .265/.325/.456 line in 2009 according to Marcel, the difference between that and Atkins' projected .293/.355/.472 is fairly significant at a position that both were equally bad at defensively in 2008. The only other competitive solution to the issue necessitates Dexter Fowler or Carlos Gonzalez being assets at the MLB level in center, so Brad Hawpe could move in to first, but neither Fowler nor Gonzalez have shown that they're ready for regular big league work.

Glendon Rusch adds one more piece to the puzzle as a non-roster invite, but I'm curious what exactly came of his meeting with the team when he asked for clarification of his role. For Rusch to be added to the roster, somebody else has to be taken off, but Troy Renck's notes make it sound as if he's already got a place on the team,

Rusch and Alan Embree will be the team's primary left-handed relievers entering spring training. Embree will be a late-inning setup man, while Rusch is pegged as a long reliever and a spot starter.

even while Rusch himself acknowledges that there's going to be some sort of competition there. I know the Rockies would like to trade Luis Vizcaino, if possible, which would open a spot, but otherwise it looks like Ryan Speier would be the odd man out should Rusch be part of the opening day 25-man roster. Juan Morillo's Rockies career also seems to be pretty tenuous at the moment, but the Spring usually has a couple of surprises, so we'll see where this goes.

Fox's Ken Rosenthal reports that the Rockies still may trade for Jason Marquis if they don't land Tim Redding, an idea that was nixed by the team a few days ago.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

CarGon back in action yesterday...

For the first time in a month, but he picked up better than he left off, I guess you could say. Two HR’s and five RBI in four at bats.

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 10:19 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Atkins for a middle of the Rotation starter?

ugh. OK, I know I’m one of the few that actually likes Atkins, but I’ve not seen too many middle of the Rotation starters lately that can have a significant impact on a mediocre team like the Rockies are shaping up to be. I also don’t see a rebound for Helton. He’s not getting any younger, and back issues just don’t go away, and I’d rather have Helton-insurance with Atkins then a middle of the Rotation starter.

I’m hoping Brad Penny talks will start up (assuming he’s healthy…and that’s a BIG assumption). Or even Rodrigo Lopez….both could be middle of the rotation types if they rebound. The right rake and we could find that middle of the rotation guy off the scrap heap…and not give up Atkins.

Oh, and in the Mile High watch, I see Ray “Burger” King is going to be making a comeback! 34 is young enough, and at one time he was a dominant LOOGY (before he ate himself out of baseball).

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Dec 19, 2008 10:32 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately

Brad Penny was ruled out as a possibility by O’Dowd about a week ago. Too bad, because he’d be a good fit.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jabberwocky on Dec 19, 2008 11:41 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

and that to me

was just one round of negotiations.

Unless it’s really the truth.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Dec 19, 2008 3:59 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Ray king had the best beer gut in baseball

so round and smooth he was like a giant weeble-wooble that threw gas.

by holliday5 on Dec 19, 2008 10:37 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

+1

#33, Washington Redskin 1937-1952, Pro Football HOF Class of 1963.

Rest In Peace, Slingin' Sammy Baugh

by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2008 11:49 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still not sure what the big deal is

We’re not going to legitimately win anything in 2009. 2009 is gonna be a building year, not REBUILDING OMG FIRESALE, but letting Tulo find a consistent swing, let Stewart develop as a real MLB 3B, let Spills adapt to full-time play in the OF, etc etc.

That said, if Helton’s back goes out again, we field a team of
C. Iannetta
1B Hawpe
2B Barmes
3B Stewart
SS Tulowitzki
LF Spills
CF Fowler
RF Smith
4th OF Gonzalez to spell Smith and Fowler.

Juggling 324 games between Smith, Fowler, and Gonzalez would be a good way to get them all serious playing time, while Spills holds down LF, and Bake can sneak starting time in at 1B, 2B, 3B, LF, RF.

I’m also weird like this, though. I like our team just how it is. Yes, we need pieces, but I get excited making bizarre defensive alignments and stuff. No, our lineup does not strike fear into my heart, but it’s young and somewhat potent. And it’s not as if we’re trotting out a bunch of 0 VORP players. Everyone in that starting lineup (excepting Fowler, Gonzalez, and Tulowitzki, and I’ll let everyone else analyze that themselves) has a positive MLVr, which tells me that we’re a better than league-average offensive team. I mean, factor in Coors Field and we drop back closer to league average pretty quickly, but it’s not a AAA rebuild Nationals lineup or anything like that.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Dec 19, 2008 10:57 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

I'm curious why you see us so far off

We should compete in the NL West in 2009 with just a couple of things going our way healthwise and in the rotation. I don’t know if you’re underestimating the Rockies or overestimating the Dodgers or D-backs, but as things stand now, the Rockies shouldn’t just give up on competing this season.

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 11:12 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying give up

We have a lot of good pieces. And the NL West is incredibly weak. I’m just looking at us in a vacuum, never mind where we place relative to other teams in the division. I’m saying that for us to reach our potential, we need Fowler to start getting acclimated to CF in Coors, we need Stewart to get comfortable starting, we need Brian Sabean to trade us Jonathan Sanchez for Atkins, etc etc.

In terms of the division, the Dodgers lost more than they’re going to gain.1.300 OPS Manny is gone, and even if he comes back, he won’t be as mindblowing as he was last season with the Dodgers. Not to say he won’t be a stud, but he picked that team up and carried them to the NLCS. Their rotation lost Lowe and The Professor, leaving them with Bills, Kuroda, and Kershaw, who’s hardly potty trained nevertheless MLB ready (Kershaw needs a season of conditioning at altitude in Albuquerque IMO but that’s another fanpost).

The Giants have all the pitching, and a lineup consisting of Aaron Rowand, Randy Winn, and Fred Lewis’ left leg. If Ishikawa comes up and just suddenly starts ripping the cover up the ball or Pablo Sandoval magically discovers how to maintain a .400 BABIP, they might be NL West contenders, or whatever passes as a contender in this division.

Similar to the Giants, Webb-Haren-Scherzer-Davis-Petit is a downright solid. They are hoping that Reynolds, Upton, Young, and Jackson stop being so raw and start being good. I mean, if they do, everyone just watch right out. Otherwise, they will be a .500 club at best.

The Padres are out of it. I won’t say anymore.

That said, I do feel the Rockies, as we stand now, do have a solid chance of competing in this division. Our pieces sum to be better than their pieces.

As I said a minute ago, I’m just imagining the team that will own this division once our guys like Stew, Fowler, Tulo, Baldo, and eventually Dex, Morales, and Chacin all settle in and become solid producers.

I think our team is good, I really do. But somewhere in the back of my mind when I suggest a bunch of weird alignments being populated by guys whose toolsets are more suited for utility play, it puts up the “not really a good team” flag.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Dec 19, 2008 12:35 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

It's going to be really nice in a couple of seasons, that's for sure

No need to rush things if the players aren’t ready, however, and pushing Fowler into center from the start of the season might qualify. I think he lost his groove with the Olympics, as he was pretty unimpressive both offensively and defensively during his September call-up. If he’s still that player, giving him the starter nod from the gate in Spring Training while at the same time lopping off Atkins could be seen as a signal that 2009 is, in fact, a rebuilding year for the Rox. Fowler could have gone to Harvard, so when the time comes, it’s not going to take him very long to figure out playing center at Coors. I’d rather wait until it’s a little more certain that he and the team are both ready then load too much risk into the system too soon.

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 2:31 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Quick note....

Our rotation will be Webb-Haren-Davis-______-Scherzer; according to Moorad, the club may be looking for another starter.

Sorry, carry on.

#33, Washington Redskin 1937-1952, Pro Football HOF Class of 1963.

Rest In Peace, Slingin' Sammy Baugh

by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2008 5:29 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Saw that as well

I still think that Scherzer will likely be a #3 quality guy (or better – god forbid) regardless of where he is “slotted” in.

by Hizilla on Dec 19, 2008 7:23 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

My bet

is that they’re still not convinced about Scherzer as a starter. When he has his other 2 pitches working, he’s nearly an ace. When it’s just his heater, he struggles. I think he certainly has the potential to become the #3.

But I also think that they’re penciling him in for #5 because they’re uncertain as to whether or not he can handle the workload. If he goes the whole season without injury, he’ll probably be our #3 in 2010. Otherwise, he’ll be the #5 starter early this year and the closer in 2010 or even late 2009.

#33, Washington Redskin 1937-1952, Pro Football HOF Class of 1963.

Rest In Peace, Slingin' Sammy Baugh

by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2008 7:56 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Webb-Haren-Davis-Blackley-Scherzer?

Moorad’s comments don’t necessarily negate Petit, he could just be saying it will be a scrum between all the AAAA types in camp come March. I very much doubt the team will go over the $2.5 million they offered RJ, and for that price you can get.., well.., Livan’s still available, right?

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 7:37 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Could be Blackley.

Would be ubercool to have an Aussie in the rotation, and he DID sign a major league contract. He gives us another LHP to balance out RJ’s departure, too.

I have a sneaking suspicion that unless we sign one of the midlevel FA pitchers floating around, Petit will probably win the job in Spring Training, but I’m really not sure.

#33, Washington Redskin 1937-1952, Pro Football HOF Class of 1963.

Rest In Peace, Slingin' Sammy Baugh

by DbacksSkins on Dec 19, 2008 7:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

atkins

I really don’t understand the whole “trade atkins” philosophy. Alright, I get that he wasn’t that great last year. It was a bad year. But if your “bad” year is .285-20-100, then you’re a really good player. And I don’t see any reason why he won’t bounce back to batting .300, or better.

And even if you’re in the “trade atkins” camp, right now has to be about the worst possible time to do it. His value is as low as it can be. Kudos to the management here, give it some time, if he bounces back in the first half of the year, then you can reconsider trade offers (depending on where the team is and how helton and stewart are faring) and get a much better haul.

by rockieswon on Dec 19, 2008 12:48 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Gee why would I want to trade Atkins?

Maybe you missed the fanpost on the right side of your screen that’s entitled “Reasons we should trade Atkins”

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum

by RockiesMagicNumber on Dec 19, 2008 1:02 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I've been in agreement with you

Although Atkins’ numbers last season were more than a bit superficial and Coors inflated. Still, there’s a pretty strong chance that they mark a low that he’ll bounce back from rather than a step in a downward spiral that will take him to even lower points this season. At this point, I still see his value to the Rockies at least until CarGon or Fowler prove ready for prime time.

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 2:38 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you on atkins.

I guess I just don’t know enough if everyone is right and Atkins is the scourge of the earth. The guy had a down year and still hit .280. I don’t think we need to lose another 100 RBIs out of our line up. And he’s just not that horrible defensively IMO. It would be one thing if someone just blew us away with an offer but there is no reason to give him away.

Now don’t get me wrong. I like Stewart and I think we need to figure a way to keep both of them in the lineup. But we can’t just get rid of all of our right handed bats.

by pedalpusher on Dec 19, 2008 5:16 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Morales

Lost in the Tracy Ringolsby article was the mention that Franklin Morales has maybe found his mojo again?

Left-hander Franklin Morales finished strong in Venezuela this winter, working six shutout innings and striking out 12 in Caracas’ 5-1 victory against Lara last weekend. The Rockies shut down Morales after making nine starts so he will be rested for spring training.

Morales was 3-3 with a 3.11 ERA, and most important, he issued only 12 walks in 46 1/3 innings.

I don’t know enough about the different Latin American leagues to know if a 3.11 ERA in the Venezuela league is good or not. It seems that bringing his walk rate down and increasing the K’s is somewhat encouraging. I hope that it gives him the ability to compete for a starting spot in the spring. Hopefully he’s rested.

by Hizilla on Dec 19, 2008 1:20 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Personally

I’m not putting much stock in Morales’ Venezuela showing. He was a complete head case from the World Series in 07 through the 08 season. Even if he has a solid spring, I will need to see him be consistent in AAA before I get excited about any contribution in 09. That said, it’s definitely good to see. Sometimes the wheels just fall off on a prospect. It looked like Frankie could have been one of those, but this provides some glimmer of hope.

by Poseidon's Fist on Dec 19, 2008 2:08 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

We talked a little about this outing in the comments to Sunday's Rockpile

That was Morales’ most encouraging start in any league for quite some time. More encouraging than the ERA, however is his 33/12 K/BB rate in just over 46 innings, which shows a lot more command than he had in 2008. I think he’s got to start in AAA, but I don’t think dreams of him coming in and helping the Rox during the season are far fetched.

by Rox Girl on Dec 19, 2008 2:16 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

That is encouraging, and I’m absolutely not ruling out an 09 contribution. I’m just definitely not planning on it. 46 innings is an encouraging amount, but we thought 22+ consecutive scoreless MLB innings in 07 were encouraging too. Hopefully he’ll continue this through the Springs…

by Poseidon's Fist on Dec 19, 2008 3:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

He's still very young, and throws really hard

….well not as hard as he once did but great for a lefty. Yes he’s been a mechanical mess, but that’s fixable, and appears to be getting fixed. I don’t know about ERA or players chasing and helping out a pitcher, but I assume the strike zone is about the same in Venezuela as it is in America. I really think and hope Morales becomes our #6 starter/long reliever out of the pen. I think it would be a great way for him to get his head on straight, get MLB experience, etc. Also I think that position is the most under-rated position on a team (the most over-rated being the closer).

How bad does he have to be to get beaten out by Glendon Rusch?

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Dec 19, 2008 3:58 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with just about everything above

Would probably be best for him to start in the Springs and establish some consistency/confidence, regardless of what he does in spring training. If he truly does have some of his command back I think that coming out of the bullpen in long relief or as a spot starter would be a great place to get his feet wet once he does establish himself on the roster.

by Hizilla on Dec 19, 2008 7:26 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs