Major Deal w/ Cards in the works?

by RockyMtnRedbird on Jul 27, 2008 9:04 AM MDT

I don't know the likelyhood of this, but may be fun to discuss.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/41107-cardinals-and-rockies-potential-trade-partners

The Rox would be getting some decent prospects. Anderson could easily be flipped elsewhere for decent value. And if they could get McClellan, he would be rotation ready by next year. Yet, I have a hard time believing that the Cards would part with two of their top pitching prospects, especially McClellan, who they've been grooming in the pen this year.

Plus Reyes just went a different direction, and I don't understand why the Rockies would have any interest in Shane Robinson.

Eat. Drink. Be Merry. But the above FanPost does not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or views of Purple Row's staff.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rasmus

A Holliday deal with the Cardinals that didn’t include Rasmus would greatly disappoint me (and greatly thrill Cards fans).

by MADness on Jul 27, 2008 9:34 AM MDT 0 recs

Agreed

I think the Cardinals could be trading partners. They have like Holliday, and need that big bat. They also have money or at least more money than the Rockies have shown. The Cardinals are in a tight playoff race, so they are motivated to help the team NOW. A Fuentes and Holliday package for McClellan and Rasmus makes sense for both clubs.

But if Rasmus wasn’t in the deal…..then I don’t think it’s worth giving up Holliday for.

Thought Clint Hurdle should be fired before it was cool.

by Redhawk on Jul 27, 2008 10:05 AM MDT up 0 recs

Hmmm

Am I the only person who doesn’t want Holliday to be traded?

Look, our payroll is 68 million (20th), and 16 million of that is Helton – we’ll have to shoulder his contract until 2012, which is too bad. But our attendance is 13th this year, and if we can win now, it will only go up. The Rockies have shown the capacity in the past to draw huge crowds. Although our payroll (minus Helton) might indicate otherwise, we’re really not a small market team.

We can afford to keep Holliday, and Holliday is worth keeping. Why don’t we just learn from our mistake with Helton’s contract when negotiating Holliday’s contract a year from now? We signed Helton through age 38. I’m sure we could sign Holliday to a six-year deal through age 35.

Scott Boras aside (I think people are focusing on him too much), we have the money to compete with other clubs when the Holliday sweepstakes begin. And if we are winning, which we can be, I wouldn’t be surprised if he stayed here.

by onholliday on Jul 27, 2008 10:52 AM MDT 0 recs

I'm with you.

I don’t want to trade Holliday, and I think he’s worth keeping. Just because we made a mistake with Helton doesn’t mean that we’re going to do the same thing with Holliday.

How I hate GIDP, RISP, and each little grounder. I'd have cracked years ago if it weren't for my sense of humor! (With apologies to Annie, the musical)

by Squeaky on Jul 27, 2008 11:21 AM MDT up 0 recs

Agreed

I agree 100% here. I really think we have the payroll flexibility to find a way to keep Holliday. With Helton’s back issues, I’m starting to wonder if he’ll be able to play out that contract. If not, we should be able to afford Holliday and, possibly, Atkins.

Even if Holliday is traded, why now? This team has played horribly all year, but we’re still only 6 games back and showing signs of life. The offense is producing now, with Tulo regaining his stroke and Stewart producing from the bottom of the line-up, Corpas has come around and Bucholtz and Fuentes have been good all year. The starting pitching is the only real question mark, but with Francis possibly ready by the end of this road trip, we’ve got three solid starters in Cook, Ubaldo, and Francis.

If anything, we should be holding onto Holliday and Fuentes (take the picks once Fuentes leaves as a FA) and trying to make a deal for another starter. I don’t expect a blockbuster, but it’d be nice to leave Cincinnatti with Arroyo. He wouldn’t cost a ton (we certainly have the depth to give up) and would be a solid #4 who can eat up some innings and keep us in ballgames. Let Rusch and JDLR fight for the 5th spot.

As much as I’d like to add another 4 or 5 top prospects to the system, we’re already beginning to hit a saturation point. We have a lot of young arms, with Ubaldo pitching well, Morales, Hirsch, and Reynolds all at AAA with big-league experience and guys like Chacin, Roe, and Rodriguez should all start next season at AA or AAA and could all potentially be ready by the end of next season. Weathers, Mattheus, and Register are all good BP candidates, too. Because of that, I really feel like another playoff run will be more beneficial long-term than a trade. Keep attendance and excitement around this team up and force management/ownership to make a commitment to the team.

by mattrob on Jul 27, 2008 11:23 AM MDT up 0 recs

How can you be sure

That we can sign Holliday for six years?
If Boston, Yankees, Angels offer seven years, and $2M more per year than the Rockies offer, Boras will take him elsewhere. Its simple economics.

Without local TV rights that pay big bucks, we are in fact a small market.
There’s nothing wrong with admitting that.

Saddling the franchise with another BIG longterm salary, at the present time, isn’t wise IMO. Especially for a corner OF. They’re the easiest to find or develop. And yes, I recognize that the Rockies haven’t had much luck doing that…

Wait for Helton’s salary to clear, and then the franchise can continue to do the medium length value contracts, like Cook’s and Tulo’s, while signing a worthy player to a big contract.

If they sign Holliday to the big contract rght now, he’ll be past his prime before Helton’s contract has cleared, and we’ll be repeating the problem in the next decade.

by rockieprogress on Jul 27, 2008 11:26 AM MDT up 0 recs

The Rox need to let the Holliday contract

play itself out into next year IMO. They are playing well right now and I don’t see a player in our system that is capable of replacing Holliday’s production, especially not in the next year or 2. I agree about corner OFers, but we aren’t having any luck in that area in our system. If I am missing someone who could help replace that production, I would be willing to look at it, but I don’t think we do.

I know a lot of us are high on Spilly, and I am as well, but his production would not touch Holliday’s in the middle of the order. We would lack a lot of the thump w/ Spilly or Smith as the regular LFer. I really can’t understand why the Rox are still trying to trade him, especially after the word was coming out that the Rox had no interest in trading Holliday at all. I guess that was just posturing, and I for one am disappointed in that.

by smokinRox on Jul 27, 2008 1:00 PM MDT up 0 recs

Tough deal to comprehend

I bet there’s been a lot of late nights on this one. It’s huge. One thing for certain is that the Rockies won’t be picking up one dime of any contracts traded to the Cards. It’s not that kind of deal because the contracts aren’t out of whack and its not a salary dump. Another problem with the deal was the possible inclusion of Barmes for a mid-level prospect. It has been my understanding that O’Dowd has been marketing Clint as a starting Major League shortstop. If so, then you don’t get back a single mid level prospect for that commodity.

We all want Big Daddy to stay in Colorado but its not going to happen. He signed with Boras in order to play on the big stage for big bucks. Period. Prepare for the time he’ll be in another uniform for its coming soon. It’s what he wants.

by roxhead on Jul 27, 2008 11:58 AM MDT 0 recs

Holliday

We all know there’s a very good chance he won’t play in Colorado beyond this year. If that’s what it comes down to, I’m fine with that (as long as we get sufficient talent in return), but this just isn’t the time. Management can’t pull the plug on a team that has won 8 of their last 9, possibly coming off a road series sweep, and is only 6 games out of a wide-open division. That would signal a lack of faith in the team and kill any momentum from last season. We don’t neccessarily have to be buyers at the deadline, but at least let this thing play out before blowing it up.

by mattrob on Jul 27, 2008 12:13 PM MDT up 0 recs

Barmes, a starting ML SS?

I don’t believe O’Dowd is going to sell any smart GM on Barmes being a starting ML SS. All you have to do is look at his home/away splits across his career, to see that he’s a completely different hitter away from Coors

by RockyMtnRedbird on Jul 27, 2008 12:37 PM MDT up 0 recs

This part....

didn’t make sense:

Also a name to be added to this list is third baseman Allen Craig. Craig is a power hitter who could be a good bat at the major-league level. Plus, if Craig came up and played third, the Rockies could keep Garret Atkins at first and move Todd Helton.

I think we’ve already got someone at 3rd who could keep Atkins at first, yes?

by BroJB on Jul 27, 2008 1:00 PM MDT 0 recs

Exactly right,

what is wrong w/ the way Stewart is playing right now. I don’t know muh about Craig, but is he considered a better prospect than Stewie?

by smokinRox on Jul 27, 2008 1:02 PM MDT up 0 recs

The entire article didn't make sense

and completely overvalues players in a weak farm system.

In my opinion, the Cardinals only have one true A, Colby Rasmus.

Garcia and Todd are close to being A- guys, but are closer to B than they are A.

Craig has power, but he’s not defensively sound, and at his age, he’s more “is what he is” than a potential power starter.

Salas is borderline middle relief, McClellan is solid middle relief, but we have that in spades.

Article doesn’t mention Chris Perez, Pete Kozma or Jon Jay.

Simply put, this was written by a Cardinal fan looking to rip the Rockies off.

Want to talk deal for real? This is the package I would request:

Rockies send: Holliday, Fuentes

Rockies receive: Rasmus, Todd, Garcia, Tyler Greene (or subbed C+ level prospect), one additional C level prospect.

by David OhNo on Jul 27, 2008 1:08 PM MDT up 0 recs

McClellan is more than middle relief.

I posted this a couple days ago in response to your comment about “Why McClellan…”

—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-——
Many expect McClellan to be in the rotation next year. He was groomed this spring as a starter, but made the club as a long reliever. He’s been one of the lone bright spots in the pen for the Cards this year. And this is all w/o ever pitching in AAA. He was very successful in A+ and AA last year, with a combined ERA around 2.00 and greater than 5:1 K:BB ration (about 60IP). Here’s some more detailed numbers: http://firstinning.com/players/Kyle-McClellan-a/

He apparently has good command of 4 pitches, and thus why they like him as a starter. Cardinals typically groom their rotation guys with a year in the pen (e.g. Dan Haren). One could argue that this is much better than the Rockies approach (see Franklin Morales). He’s 24, but missed most of 06 rehabbing TJ surgery (his second).

Here are a couple good write-ups on him:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/ABF784A40A8733088625743D00146C32?OpenDocument
http://stlcardinals.scout.com/2/740860.html

After the Haren/Mulder debacle, I don’t expect the Cards to even consider moving McClellan.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Jul 27, 2008 2:42 PM MDT up 0 recs

I've seen McClellan pitch

there isn’t a Haren resemblance to me. He’s 89-92 and peaked at 94 in relief for Springfield. He’s also only started four games in the Cardinals’ system and is now 24 years old. Expecting a guy to begin his starting career at the age of 25 and morphing into Dan Haren is quite the longshot, especially when they lack the movement of Dan Haren’s splitter and two seam, as well as the decption in the delivery.

PECOTA is also similarly underwhelmed, the best comparable being Jeremy Accardo at number 17. Few names on that list stand out as good starting pitcher conversions, and most reports suggest that his post Tommy John move to the pen was the best thing for him.

This is a sketchy starting proposition at best, and I don’t think taxing his arm even more is the best way to handle it. He’s middle relief, and not a primary trade piece, but a complementary one. You don’t deal Fuentes (or especially Holliday) if the main guy you think you’re getting back isn’t even the fourth best relief prospect in your system.

by David OhNo on Jul 27, 2008 5:30 PM MDT up 0 recs

I will respectfully disagree

Your facts aren’t accurate . He was drafted out of HS as a SP. He pitched three years as a starter (over 40 starts) in the Cards lower level farm (albeit, with unimpressive results), prior to the TJ surgery. Here’s stats from Baseball Reference:
http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=24352

He was only moved to relief last year, following his second elbow surgery. But after last year’s success at AA, he was groomed this spring as a starter again. He was dominant in spring training and made the club as a middle reliever.

While I don’t know your credentials for critiquing baseball talent, I have to believe Dave Duncan’s take on him is to be respected.

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080220&content_id=2382280&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=stl

Maybe Haren isn’t a good comparison on “stuff” alone, my comment was more of that the Cardinals (i.e. LaRussa/Duncan) have taken the middle relief route with their last two top young SP’s, Haren and Wainwright. And that route has proven successful thus far.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Jul 28, 2008 8:40 AM MDT up 0 recs

Either way

as a Rockies fan I would not be happy w/ the deal. Anything that does not include Rasmus and includes Holliday is a bad deal from a Rox perspective. The Rox may not be able to make it back this year, but we are only 6 games out and any deal involving Holliday better include a pitcher ready to step into the rotation this year, and an OFer that could potentially replace Holliday, if not this year, next for sure.

If McClellan is ready next year, who’s to say Morales won’t be and I would take the stuff of Morales over McClellan.

by smokinRox on Jul 28, 2008 11:48 AM MDT up 0 recs

Morales vs. McClellan isn't a fair comparison

I think this trade discussion by now is a moot point. However, I would like to point out that the “Morales over McClellan” argument doesn’t make sense. Never was it suggested that Morales be flipped for McClellan.

I think part of the Rockies problem early this year was that they thought they would be able to harness both Morales and Jimenez w/out issue. There’s no doubting that they both have great “stuff”, but both have had trouble harnessing that “stuff”. Ubaldo seems to have been able to taken control lately, but obviously Morales is still working on that aspect.

A pitcher like McClellan could allow the Rockies to let Morales and Reynolds season a little longer, before throwing them in the fire.

by RockyMtnRedbird on Jul 28, 2008 12:56 PM MDT up 0 recs

I didn't mention Morales

because he would be involved in the trade. It was the point that McClellan won’t help us unitl next year and next year is a different year where having a better #4 or #5 may not be needed and he may not be better anyways. The point I was making was that we need a ready starter for this year if Holliday is dealt and like I said Rasmus as well, but as you said it doesn’t seem to matter anyways as I don’t see this deal being done.

by smokinRox on Jul 28, 2008 2:27 PM MDT 0 recs