Sunday Rockpile: Fuentes Falling Back to Rockies price range?

by Rox Girl on Dec 21, 2008 10:12 AM MST in Rockpile

Buster Olney has had a couple of blog posts the last two days that include the Rockies as a possibility to re-sign Brian Fuentes. Fuentes' agent said that the left-hander wouldn't want to come back to Denver, and the team has moved, signing Alan Embree and Glendon Rusch for instance, as though they've already moved on as well, so it's pretty obvious to me that this idea doesn't really have much merit to it, but it's a slow Sunday otherwise so I'm putting it out there.

I mentioned a Ken Rosenthal report in the comments to yesterday's Rockpile that the Rockies might also be interested in Braden Looper to fill out the competition for the last rotation slot, but apparently Looper is close to signing with Milwaukee, which is sort of disappointing in that of all the names mentioned in connection with the Rockies for this slot, Tim Redding, Jason Marquis, Josh Fogg, for instance, Looper seemed like the highest grade.

I've been working on some other posts, one of which I hoped to have finished by this morning, but it's clear now that wasn't to be. I'll try and have something up later.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

draft picks...

The other thing is that the Rockies would have to deem Fuentes worth the money+the years+2 draft picks. I just don’t think this makes much sense for the Rockies to invest that much resources in a reliever.

by DenverBears on Dec 21, 2008 11:07 AM MST reply actions

No way

I’m not clear on how the money saved from the Holliday trade is going to be allocated – it appears mostly for arbitration raises and minor signings, like Embree. So, if the front office reversed course and spent significant money (5-6M is significant) on bringing back Fuentes, it would be poorly allocated money. Especially if multiple young players can be acquired during the season, and money needs to be available to make the acquisition. Plus, the two draft picks are going to be more valuable to the team than a reliever whose role can be filled by other members of the current roster.

by deacs on Dec 21, 2008 11:32 AM MST up reply actions

$$

I would think that’s in not that the Rockies were saving money by dishing Holliday – more just that they wouldn’t have the money for Holliday in 2010 – so it’s not like there’s all this free money to go on a spending spree with.

by jefe_13 on Dec 21, 2008 5:49 PM MST up reply actions

Jon Garland is...

…still out there. Not that I think for a second the we wouldn’t rather have (that is, pay) Redding/Fogg.

by Since1993 on Dec 21, 2008 2:05 PM MST reply actions

Do we really need another SP?

I Have no problems with the Rockies going out and getting Redding, Fogg, or Garland. I do however think it would be wiser to just stand pat. Let the guys already in the system fight for the remaining spots and see if they can turn their considerable “potential” into tangible results. We have a good team, but like any team not named Yankees or Red Sox, we’re still going to need a lot of things to go right to make the play-offs. If those internal options work out and the majority of the other questionable areas are looking good by June, then go after the big missing pieces. Otherwise, I think the thing to do is to save every penny for the June draft, and (for once) draft and sign the best players out there regardless of price. We’ll have four fairly high picks if Fuentes leaves (sadly I do think we should let him go for the picks) and even if we draft all “tough-signs”, we should be able to sign some high quality players if we’re able to spend a bit and accept that we may not be able to come to terms with some others. Considering our farm system, I don’t see a problem with taking a gamble on not signing a pick. We still have a deep farm system when it comes to C-grade prospects, but we really do need more blue-chip impact players after Fowler. I would guess that with the economy being what it is, we may be in for a very conservative draft league wide, which will give a team with a bit to spend (and of course the Yankees) a shot at some of those potential impact players that fall to later rounds. Oh, and lets not forget about International signings either. There may be some bargains, or in the least some players there that our money would be better spent upon.

by IowaRockie on Dec 21, 2008 8:20 PM MST reply actions

I agree

While I don’t necessarily have a problem with the Rockies drafts of the past, I think they could draft a bit more aggressively. If the money they saved on Holliday is reinvested into the draft, I think it could pay some sweet dividends by 2011

by Resolution on Dec 21, 2008 10:39 PM MST up reply actions

I sort of disagree...

Since 2000, at least, money hasn’t really made that much of a difference on draft performance. If you consider a high quality draft to be two starter level MLB players plus several other decent depth players, you’ll find that the Yankees (2006), Dodgers (2002) and Red Sox (2005) have had just one such draft each in that time, while teams like the Rockies (2000,2002,2004, possibly the last two) and Marlins (2002, 2005, probably both 2007 and 2008) have fared better. I know BA really likes that 2005 Red Sox draft, but what I would consider the three best drafts over that time, the 2000 Expos draft that got Sizemore, Cliff Lee and Jason Bay, and the 2004 drafts of the Rays (Niemann, Brignac, Davis, McGee, Sonnanstine) and Rockies (Iannetta, Fowler, C. Nelson, Seth Smith, likely the only draft to get over 10 MLB players overall) were all done by clubs which wouldn’t be considered big spenders.

That said, I think a little extra money the last couple of seasons could have helped us add pieces (Kentrail Davis, Chris Dominguez) that would put our drafts more likely to fall into that high quality category. Scouting is more important, though.

by Rox Girl on Dec 22, 2008 7:22 AM MST up reply actions

Yea

I should have elaborated and added aside from just drafting, use the money to enhance the scouting – which should then presumably increase the quality of the draft…

by Resolution on Dec 22, 2008 8:14 AM MST up reply actions

Don't forget about International Development, Either

The money that we’ve sunk into Latin America has paid off, and one can only assume that more investment will yield higher returns.

by onholliday on Dec 22, 2008 12:44 PM MST up reply actions

Point taken

Actually shortly after posting that I regretted the “for once” comment regarding our previous drafts. When Tulo dropped down the draft to us, we took him. Weathers was perhaps not the best available talent, but considering the advanced point in the rebuilding process the Rockies were at, he made a lot of sense since he should have been ready to contribute sooner than anybody else in the draft. I guess what I wanted to say is that the Rockies would best be served by using any available funds to aggressively draft and sign the best available talent, or by increased funding for scouting/development for that matter.

by IowaRockie on Dec 22, 2008 5:40 PM MST up reply actions