The State of the Colorado Rockies (Pre-Free Agency)
While Major League Baseball has yet to crown a champion, the Rockies' season is (unfortunately) over and it is time to look forward towards the swiftly oncoming offseason. The Rockies have quite a to-do list this year.
The clock for Colorado and the rest of MLB starts ticking when the Fall (Winter?) Classic concludes, as teams have 15 days to exclusively negotiate with their prospective free agents. After that time (let's say November 20th), free agents are, well, free to go where their services are most sought after. The original team has until December 12th to tender 2010 contracts to their free agents.
For those players (like Garrett Atkins) who have less than six years of MLB service time, their teams control their rights, but must tender the player a contract offer or salary arbitration, by December 1st--with the player needing to make a decision by the 7th. As a result, at baseball's Winter Meetings from December 7-10, teams will have some idea as to where the market stands.
Finally, December 8th is a very important deadline, as it is the day in which MLB clubs must set their 40 man rosters in preparation for the Rule 5 Draft, which occurs on the 10th.
These dates and other offseason deadlines are explained in more detail here.
To learn a little bit more about some of the topics I just touched upon, please check out these previous sessions of Purple Row Academy, which I'll be updating over the offseason:
Now that you understand a little better the timeline that Dan O'Dowd and the Rockies are working with, I'll break down the Rockies' contract situations (and the decisions to be made therein) extensively after the jump.
Before I begin, let me first note that this analysis will be limited to what I can project the 25 man roster to be, since I'm forecasting the 2010 ODP (which only includes the active roster and DL). For most of the players not on the 25 man roster but who are on the 40 man, they will be paid the prorated minimum should they make the Show and considerably less in the minor leagues.
What the Rockies Already Owe in 2010
This category is for money that the Rockies have already committed to the 2010 roster. Note that this only includes players who are under contract with the Rockies (not just under team control), giving management concrete salary obligations to work around. This data, as well as much of the data for the rest of this study, was contributed by the incomparable Jeff Euston at Cot's Contracts.
For each player I'll give their name, approximate ML service time, 2010 salary, and minimum future salary obligations. This means that I assume that the Rockies decline every club option.
| Player Name | ML Service Time | 2010 Salary | Additional Minimum Obligation | Years After 2010 |
| Todd Helton | 12.059 | $16,600,000 | $23,700,000 | 1 |
| Aaron Cook | 7.02 | $9,833,000 | $10,583,000 | 1 |
| Brad Hawpe | 5.058 | $7,500,000 | $500,000 | 0 |
| Jeff Francis | 5.04 | $5,875,000 | $0 | 0 |
| Troy Tulowitzki | 3.033 | $3,500,000 | $25,750,000 | 3 |
| Manuel Corpas | 3.076 | $2,750,000 | $3,750,000 | 1 |
| Ubaldo Jimenez | 2.087 | $1,250,000 | $8,000,000 | 2 |
| Yorvit Torrealba | 8.03 | $500,000 | $0 | 0 |
| Alan Embree | 15.059 | $250,000 | $0 | 0 |
| Total | $48,058,000 | $72,283,000 |
This chart shows that the Rockies, even if they do not re-sign Torrealba or Embree, have committed over $48 million to seven players on the 2010 roster. And these are only the players who the Rockies know how much they have to pay. Again, this is if the Rockies don't pick up any club options on these players.
Pre-Arbitration Players
For the players listed below, the Rockies have the option of keeping them under control for several more years and can do so cheaply in 2010 (for a price between $400,000 and $460,000). For the purposes of this exercise I'm assuming a 3% raise over 2009 salary. This is assuming that the Rockies let Embree and Torrealba walk and find internal replacements. The pre-arbitration players:
| Player Name | ML Service Time | 2010 Salary |
| Eric Young Jr. | 0.042 | $412,000 |
| Dexter Fowler | 1.027 | $413,030 |
| Franklin Morales | 2.01 | $414,060 |
| Paul Phillips | 2.06 | $427,450 |
| Ian Stewart | 1.154 | $416,120 |
| Carlos Gonzalez | 1.06 | $415,090 |
| Seth Smith | 1.119 | $415,090 |
| Matt Daley | 0.155 | $412,000 |
| Total | $3,324,840 |
This chart tells us that the Rockies will be paying a little over $3.3 million to eight players on the 25 man roster. This fact again emphasizes the importance of teams maximizing the value of young players.
The player whose omission sticks out on that list is Matt Murton. With his service time, he would seem to be eligible for Super Two Arbitration status, but due to the fact that he did not accrue at least 86 days of ML service time in 2009 he is rendered ineligible for salary arbitration. At least, I think so. Of course, unless the Rockies unload either Hawpe or Ryan Spilborghs, Murton won't be on the roster--and since this projection is based upon roster stability, Murton is not included on this projection.
Projecting these 15 slots was easy--it's the potential arbitration cases that can get tricky.
Arbitration-Eligible Players
In addition to the 15 players mentioned in the tables above, plus Matt Murton (who would be the victim of a numbers game if the status quo is kept), the Rockies have 10 potential salary arbitration cases on their hands with players that have between three and six years of ML service time (Tracy Ringolsby lists them here). Calculating potential salaries for these players is quite tricky. As I noted when I wrote about ML service time, the average salary raise in 2009 was 172% when multi-year deals for arbitration-eligible players (like Ryan Howard's 3 year, $54 million deal) are included.
The Rockies in 2008 gave raises of over 300% to Clint Barmes and Jorge De La Rosa plus hefty salary increases to Taylor Buchholz, Huston Street, Garrett Atkins, and Jason Grilli--raises which increased payroll by $7,649,000 over the six players' 2008 salaries. This year, the Rockies' situation will be much more expensive, with several of their arb-eligible players performing at a high level in 2009.
When projecting arbitration raises for the Rockies I did so based on some past history--giving higher % raises to players with a lower starting salary and to those who had performed in a starting role.
Here's which I came up with, provided the Rockies tendered a 2010 contract offer to each of their arbitration eligibles:
| Player Name | ML Service Time | 2010 Salary | Difference from 2009 |
| Garrett Atkins | 5.072 | $5,640,000 | -20% |
| Huston Street | 5 | $8,775,000 | 95% |
| Jorge De La Rosa | 5.015 | $5,600,000 | 180% |
| Clint Barmes | 4.122 | $4,225,000 | 160% |
| Taylor Buchholz | 3.14 | $1,055,000 | 0% |
| Matt Belisle | 4.02 | $1,200,000 | 50% |
| Randy Flores | 5.061 | $900,000 | 50% |
| Jason Hammel | 2.153 | $2,026,560 | 380% |
| Chris Iannetta | 3.029 | $1,867,500 | 350% |
| Ryan Spilborghs | 3.072 | $788,500 | 90% |
| Total | $32,077,560 | 134% |
This chart tells us that based on career performance and function (weighted more heavily toward 2009), the Rockies will pay these 10 players over $32 million--about $13.7 million more than they were paid in 2009. This chart is even assuming that Garrett Atkins will be tendered and will accept a minimum 80% of his previous year's salary (unlikely). Even with Atkins, the projected average arbitration salary increases is only 134%, well below 2009's MLB average of 172%--meaning that my estimated raises, shocking in their size as they may seem, may even be on the low side.
Estimated Rockies 2010 ODP
This calculation represents the status quo, if the Rockies neither re-sign any of their free agents nor get rid of any players under team control and remain dormant in free agency. The resulting roster would have 24 players on it with Buchholz starting the year on the DL (therefore another player's salary would need to be added in) and would be paid:
Multi-Year Contracts: $48,058,000
Pre-Arbitration Contracts: $3,324,840
Arbitration Contracts: $32,077,560
Total ODP: $83,460,400
In other words, the Rockies' ODP will need to grow by $8,259,400, or 10.98%, in order to maintain the status quo (a cost certainty price floor, if you will).
What This All Means
It's pretty obvious to me that the status quo won't happen, as Atkins will likely be non-tendered and one of the outfielders (Hawpe, Spilborghs, or Murton) will be shopped around and dealt. What the above calculation shows, however, is that the Rockies will have very little payroll flexibility to add pieces for 2010--especially if the Rockies need to replace Atkins and grab another bullpen piece.
The most pressing issue given this limitation is the $5.4 million team option on set-up man Rafael Betancourt--in my opinion the team simply can't afford to pay it, unless they are planning on moving Hawpe and his $7.5 million contract. Also, the Rockies have a few free agents they'd like to re-sign, including Joe Beimel (who will probably cost around $2 million), Jason Giambi ($1.5 million), and Torrealba (at most $2 million). Again, Colorado would need to move Hawpe to make this possible.
Remember though that if the Rockies do move Hawpe, they'll receive trade assets in return--and especially if those players are major leaguers they must also be well-compensated.
If I Were In Charge...
Given the financial limitations facing the Rockies and in light of the fact that they were very successful in 2009, a fine line must be walked between cost consciousness and competitiveness. Because the Rockies can not add very many, if any, significant pieces given their current projected payroll, they need to make a few moves. Here's what I would do this offseason to shape the 2010 Rockies:
1. Non-Tender Garrett Atkins. For the love of God, please--Atkins doubles as expensive and bad.
2. Pick only one or two out-going free agents to re-sign. There isn't any room for more than that. The Rockies' top priority should be getting back Betancourt or Beimel if they can get them back for a reasonable price (in this case, under $2.5 million). Relief pitching is too fungible and the market too inefficient to pay relievers big bucks. Likely this person will be Beimel. If the Rockies can get Torrealba back for about $1.5-2 million, they should do it--but they should let him walk if he wants much more than that. An alternative to Torrealba would be to keep Giambi around if he could be had for $1.5 million to come off the bench. I would keep one or the other (or neither), there isn't money for both.
Torrealba would replace Phillips on the roster or Giambi would replace the recently outrighted Omar Quintanilla.
3. Look hard for a taker for Brad Hawpe. In order for the Rockies to shore up their rotation and find a suitable sub for Atkins, they will need to move someone from their glut of outfielders to maintain payroll flexibility. Hawpe may very well be the Rockies' best hitting outfielder and an excellent leader in the clubhouse, but his horrific defense, much higher salary, and All-Star status make Hawpe an ideal trade piece--a player that has much more marginal value to prospective trading partners than he does to his own team. Even after his cold second half, Hawpe does have value around the league (especially as a DH), enough to garner the package I've outlined below.
A possible trade package for Hawpe would be a young back-end rotation starter and either a corner infield reserve or a B prospect or two. The Rockies need starting pitching depth for the simple reason that they were fortunate with pitcher health last year (basically the same five starters all year)--something that will likely not continue next year. They do have a bevy of good pitching prospects, but they will be relying on Francis or Morales to nail down the fifth slot in the rotation, so some insurance is probably needed. If the Rockies can get a major league-ready arm plus a prospect for Hawpe they should pull the trigger.
If no such trade package were to surface, either Spilborghs or Murton would need to be moved--and my decision would be Spilborghs due to the fact that he's older, will command a higher salary, and has Scott Boras as an agent.
4. Gauge the market for Manuel Corpas. If someone will offer value, I'd move him. But value in this situation would be relatively high--I'd hate to sell low on Corpas.
5. Bring in the usual suspects on minor league deals as pitching depth. There are plenty of guys that fit this mold (Fogg, Herges, Rincon, etc.). This is cheap depth to be used in case of dire emergencies only.
The resulting ODP from these moves (assuming Hawpe is moved) would be about $76.7 million, a slight payroll increase from 2009.
2 recs |
73 comments
|
Comments
Where did you get the updated service time values?
Cot’s has yet to update.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 4:44 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I just estimated as best as I could for each player based on transaction logs.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 29, 2009 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a lot of work, well done!
When I was writing up my contract status stuff, I was just estimating.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
In addition, Omar Quintainlla has already been outrighted.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 4:47 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I saw that...and I am in the process of updating now.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 29, 2009 4:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
is outrighting the same as nontendering
I mean, I know it’s essentially the same thing, but is it really just different words for the same thing?
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 9:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quintanilla has the option of remaining in the organization as a minor league player...
whereas more often than not a non-tendered player is not wanted in the organization anymore. In theory, I think that the two are pretty similar though.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 30, 2009 10:15 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
gotcha
reason I asked is that Wolf posted outrighted (along with others) and you updated the article with non-tendered.
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. :D
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 30, 2009 10:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow its liek magick
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically, outrighting is the act of removing a conract from the roster, while non-tendering is the act of not offering a new contract.
Omar Quintanilla (or anyone else in our system who wasn’t signed already, for that matter) hasn’t signed a new contract for 2010, so the transaction was basically for his 2009 contract, which is good until the tender deadline in December. They ultimately have the same basic effect, as Jabberwocky pointed out: no longer on the 40 man roster, the major difference being that Quintanilla, should he choose, can stay in our organization and accept a minor league contract for next year, or he can choose free agency, while non tendering basically makes one a free agent by default, because they are without a contract.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 30, 2009 10:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I figured that was what it is
I like this. It’s like we fired Q but let him like sweep up after games or be a beer guy or something.
Actually, one of the rockpile ushers went to high school with Q.
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 10:57 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't gotten word yet if he's going through the free agency filing process.
He’s been with the organization longer than, say, Peralta was, so he may have more of a sentimental desire to stay. Not that it matters too much, I don’t see him making the team out of ST.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 30, 2009 11:01 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Likewise
I take McCoy over Q
well of course Id o
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 11:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
McCoy is also a non-tender candidate.
It will depend on how many roster spots they need to sign free agents and/or protect youngsters from the Rule 5. With the departures of Peralta and Q from the roster, we now have 38 spots filled plus 7 on the 60 Day DL.
Once the world series is over and the players can declare free agency without team permission, Beimel, Contreras, Fogg, Herges, Marquis, and Rincon come off, opening up six more spots (32), giving us enough room to take our seven 60 Day DLers off and be back at 39. Assuming we turn down our options, Betancourt, Embree, Giambi, and Torrealba are off too, leaving the final total somewhere between 39 and 35, depending on which options we select (should be at LEAST 3 free spots, as activating Giambi’s or Embree’s options would be flat idiotic).
by WolfMarauder on Oct 30, 2009 11:15 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU HOLD YOUR TONGUE SIR
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 11:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should clarify....
That makes McCoy an OUTRIGHT candidate, as the tender deadline is actually after the Rule 5 draft.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 30, 2009 11:50 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's it
banned
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 11:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't even finish reading this
but I had to rec it. It’s too good. Thanks a lot man, this will make my “spend the offseason as pretend GM” routine roll so much more smoothly.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 4:53 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
This might be something to add to your post at some point (or for another edition later down the road)
Rule 5 eligibility.
There are four new Purps not already on the 40 man roster that will be eligible for the draft:
- Michael McKenry
- Cole Garner
- Chaz Roe
- Edgmer Escalona
Deeper into the organization, I’m not certain who else needs to be added to that list.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:11 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep, that's a topic for sometime in November...as the dust settles on the 2009 season.
Rule 5 will definitely be something that I update in the near future.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 29, 2009 5:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So a thought exercise
I’m going to phrase this poorly but given that Hawpe is a lefty, a reasonable age, in his prime, relatively inexpensive though not exactly cheap, what is his trade value?
According to fangraphs this year, he provided 6.3 million dollars of value. Now, I expect him to provide something like that for next season as an outfielder, if he were to DH, he’d lose the -20 runs of fielding but gain an additional -10 runs for positional adjustment. So as a DH he’d be 10 runs better (or 10 runs less bad depending how you look at it). That would equate to 1 more win which would mean he would provide 10.8 million dollars of value.
Now I don’t expect us to be blown away by a trade offer but
Is it better to hold on to Hawpe should only underwhelming offers be made
Or
is it better to trade Hawpe, take the underwhelming offer knowing we essentially paid 25 cents on the dime, but also know that our return in the trade still can have value (just not as much value as Hawpe), as well as freeing up the OF spot to Seth Smith who can provide similar offense, and much much better defense.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 5:12 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Also the reason I went through the value trouble is
maybe a reader with a better sense of this (and more time, I really need to stop procrastinating) knows what a trade package of ~6.5 million or ~10.8 million looks like…
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 5:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Hawpe thing is something that I'll probably explore in more detail sometime very soon.
With economics and everything.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 29, 2009 5:22 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
sweeeeeet
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 5:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should ONLY underwhelming offers be mad? Yes, hold onto him.
But I believe the trade market will be as such that we can get at least equal value, and with Hawpe, that value has little anywhere to go but down. Despite his second half slump, Hawpe has still been connected to at least six teams, and if any one of them gives us a decent reliever or other value considered to be “good enough”, I say pull the trigger. We don’t have to break the bank for him, But no, I don’t want to trade him for nothing either.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
It's complex
I’m not sure what 6-10 mil looks like in a trade package.
Honestly, if we could get a reliever who could be a potential closer (Who was Andrew Bailey before this year? Or a Joakim Soria? or maybe a Luke Gregerson or Matt Thornton), I’d easily do this. (Also for reference: Betancourt provided 6.4 mil of value this season)
Especially if the reliever won’t be a free agent for another couple of seasons – then it gives us reason not to sign Street to a long term deal, and perhaps some reason to sign Betancourt to a cheaper contract. But this is another discussion entirely.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 5:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have the economic experience (or desire) to take a look at the trade from a montary perspective.
Which is precisely why I won’t be throwing out names that we should be looking for for Hawpe. Simply from a performance standpoint and a need/have standpoint, I think it is far more beneficial to trade Hawpe now than it is to wait until a year from now.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I really have no experience with economics either
I guess the thing I’m trying to capture most is
If you look at guys like Andrew Bailey or Soria’s numbers in the minor leagues, they were decent but there was little to suggest that they’d be awesome closers (granted we only have seen Bailey for 1 season but w/e)
Now if Bailey hadn’t done what he just did in the majors, and his minor league line from 2008 was his line for 2009 and we traded Hawpe for him, it would be seen as an underwhelming trade.
So how worth it is it (and how much do we trust our scouting) to take a shot on guys like those two
1. hoping they go from decent minor leaguer to reliable, above average reliever but knowing that they could just not work out and we essentially trade Hawpe for nothing
2. knowing that playing a guy like Hawpe when we have a guy like Smith on our team is doing nothing but actively hurting the team.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 5:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure we have to go for a closer type, to be honest.
Just a quality arm for the late innings to account for an obstacle in signing Betancourt, unreliability from Corpas and Morales (or even Street in an emergency), and Buchholz’s slowed return. I do want this hypothetical player to be MLB ready, though, and not a gamble prospect.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rockies are in a weird situation right now with thier bullpen
They have a lot of guys who could be really good but very few sure things. I would like to think that between Morales, (assuming he’s in the bullpen) Bettencourt (assuming we sign him), Dailey, Corpas, Buck, and our prospects coming up we will have a great set up core but I just can’t be sure.
It just makes the whole situation really tricky for me.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 29, 2009 5:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel like
if we trade Hawpe for something other than a reliever, we’ll just get spare parts and AAAA players.
The only area on the team that i think can be easily improved by trading Hawpe is in the bullpen.
No one’s going to trade us our future second baseman for Hawpe nor will they trade us a starting pitcher better than the Jhoulys, Hammels, and Morales’ we already have – unless of course DOD gets creative and deals Hawpe and someone.
Of course I could be totally wrong but that’s just my gut feeling.
Lets also not forget people like to hate on and underrate Rockies bats.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 6:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Resolution, would you
Trade Hawpe for Matt Daley (if Daley had put up his 2009 numbers with another MLB team)?
by biondino on Oct 30, 2009 4:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because while your argument is decent
The number of rookie relievers who have NOT had Soria/Bailey seasons overwhelms their success stories to a huge degree. Daley is a decent middle-inning talent who has proved himself, but will likely never be a standout player – what’s the risk/reward balance you’re looking at?
by biondino on Oct 30, 2009 4:10 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it gets complicated
Because (and this is all my opinion)
1. Like I mentioned, having Hawpe is actively hurting the Rockies since Smith has plus defense while Hawpe is terrible. Now a lot of people are arguing that we shore up the bullpen by signing Street and Betancourt because we’re a contending team and we can’t just mess around and take risks. I feel that this argument should carry the same gravity towards this decision.
2. We aren’t blessed with a higher payroll so by improving on the field by moving from Hawpe to Smith, we are also improving by having 6.5 million more to spend (ignoring the money needed for who we trade Hawpe for).
3. Like I also mentioned, I think the bullpen is the only area where we can expect to get true impact talent for Hawpe unless a trade is involving Hawpe and someone else. I don’t think any teams are high enough on Hawpe to give up a highly regarded position player or starting pitcher. I also think getting some good bullpen talent takes the pressure off of us to sign Street. I like Street I really do and would love him to stay a Rockie but I just don’t believe it’s the smartest decision, he’s a young, big name and he’s a reliever. We all liked Fuentes and were sad to see him go but who the hell was he when the Rockies got him? (Answer: Mediocre starter who much better out of the pen).
So sorry to digress and repeat myself but to answer your question more directly:
I don’t deal Hawpe straight up for Daley.
But, I feel like guys like Daley aren’t too uncommon, and aren’t coveted by their teams as much. So this goes back to trusting our scouting, if I’m a GM and I trust our scouting then I try to deal Hawpe for a guy like Daley and either another guy like Daley or perhaps a questionable MLB starter who’s stuff could play better out of the bullpen.
Ideally I’d like to trade Hawpe for around 3 guys who aren’t valued too highly by their team and can potentially be called upon to help out the Rockies one inning at a time in a relief role.
If out of those 3 guys we get a Brian Fuentes, I think actually having that Brian Fuentes (along with Street and whoever else in the pen in 2010) + the improvement (defensively) from Hawpe to Smith (which according to our best estimates of defense would give the team 2 more wins alone assuming similar offense) + the money saved by dealing Hawpe + the money saved by not tying up one tenth of our payroll to Street for 3-5 years is worth the risk of trading a respectable, consistent, in-his-prime position player who’d function even better as a DH.
That would be my logic and that’s what I’d go for.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 30, 2009 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So one more point to add
I feel like on the surface,
trading Hawpe who is all the things I mentioned earlier (consistent, prime etc.) plus a valued clubhouse guy, for a few bullpen arms and a questionable major league starter on the surface LOOKS underwhelming, in actuality it’s not.
Again, just my opinion.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 30, 2009 12:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is where mid-market team management gets interesting.
DOD Calls unnamed GM: “Hey I have this great expensive guy, I’m listening to offers because I have a ton of OF depth and I really can’t afford him. Are you interested? By the way, I can only take good, young, cheap players in return…”
On the other side of the phone: “”
by Latrock on Oct 29, 2009 5:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Fortunately for Hawpe, he's young enough where other teams will have interest without reservations.
If anything is really working against Hawpe, it’s his defense, not his pricetag.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And
He is basically on a one year deal for only $7.5M if he gets traded. That’s not a real high risk contract.
by Hizilla on Oct 29, 2009 11:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'd be great for someone looking for a slugging DH on the cheap.
by Hizilla on Oct 29, 2009 11:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a team that would be a good fit for Hawpe would be Seattle
They only scored 640 runs last year. That was good for last in the AL and 29th in MLB beating out only the offensivly challanged Pades who scored 638. Rumors have them going after Jason Bay to add offense but they are on a budget. They also have an opening at DH with Griffey probably retiring and they have no left fielder. I think Hawpe would look really appealing to them.
The problem is I don’t know who I’d want in return. Maybe we need to get a third team involved.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 29, 2009 11:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could probably get Felix Hernandez
by controlled_slide on Oct 30, 2009 10:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS THROW IN TULO
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 30, 2009 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah easily
Felix for a decent DH? hells yeah sign the paper Z
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only problem is that
Seattle seems to value defense more than any other organization, of course Hawpe WOULD be a perfect DH for them.
Another thing working against Hawpe we all forget about – he’s a Rockie. He can’t hit away from Coors yadda yadda yadda.
Also, I’m not sure I like a trade to Seattle because they’re actually a smart organization.
O’Dowd should call the Astros first, then maybe like the White Sox or the Royals or the Mets.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 30, 2009 12:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
well they are now
see we should’ve traded him there like 2 years ago
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude totally man
Bill Bavasi made the offseason Christmas.
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 30, 2009 12:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carlos Silva rhp
4 years/$48M (2008-11), plus 2012 mutual option
* 4 years/$48M (2008-11), plus 2012 option
o signed by Seattle as a free agent 12/20/07
o $5M signing bonus
o 08:$7M, 09:$11M, 10:$11.5M, 11:$11.5M, 12:$12M mutual option ($2M buyout)
o no-trade protection for 2008
o award bonuses: $0.2M for Cy Young, $0.1M for WS MVP, $50,000 each for LCS MVP, Gold Glove, All Star
o suite on road
Hope got in my eyes
by Andrew Martin on Oct 30, 2009 1:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Hawpe DID win the NL Gold Glove at DH in 2008...
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 30, 2009 2:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at it from a different angle
I think something that might effect Hawpe’s trade value is how much money guys like Holliday, Bay, Damon, and Abreu get. If they go for really high prices, then teams might be more willing to trade for a less expensive option like Hawpe; but if the free agent market is bad, then I don’t see many teams willing to give up players for a slightly less expensive option in Hawpe.
I think there are a lot of variables in the Hawpe equation that we just don’t know yet.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 29, 2009 5:43 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
''I think there are a lot of variables in the Hawpe equation that we just don’t know yet."
Precisely. At this point, all we can do is contextualize the hypothetical trade and what role it could/should have in our development into 2010. No real angle to approach it yet from a talent, budget, or market standpoint without further time.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:46 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Reply fail again.
I don’t know why this keeps happening… I was definitely in the reply box and not the new post box.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 29, 2009 5:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is weird
Its never happened to me
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Oct 29, 2009 6:30 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I still think we should hold off on corpas, at least until May
two reasons. 1st, Trading him during the off season is a sell low only situation. He has no value at all.
2nd, there are far too many questions in the pen right now, and I would prefer the depth to start out with. We need to get guys signed on and determine how Taylor is going to come back.
BTW, I am hopeful considering recent reports that he has his velocity back.
by mkorpal on Oct 29, 2009 9:00 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm in agreement
If you want to trade someone you can’t sell low and that is exactly what you would be doing with Corpas
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 29, 2009 10:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at everything on there
the biggest issue I have is Francis. I fear very much that we will be paying a guy 5 million buck to hurl 85mph fastballs all season. What does the team do with him if he come back horrible, or not at all? On the other hand, what do you do if he comes back decent but one of the young prospects forces his way in. Is it possible we trade our former ace?
by mkorpal on Oct 29, 2009 9:04 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
He becomes an expensive LOOGY?
"These are thin mints. I put them in the freezer. My favorites. So good."
--Reds outfielder Adam Dunn, on the girl scout cookies he keeps in his locker
by Resolution on Oct 29, 2009 10:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Francis is a total wild card
He could come back and be great, never be the same again or end up anywhere in between. Nothing would surprise me.
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 29, 2009 10:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's hoping he comes back strong...
Because that really solidifies the rotation. If he comes back at a decent level, that gives us more than Marquis gave us. We’d be looking at one of the better rotations in the league for sure. U-ball’s the ace, but everyone else can come out and shut you down.
Also, that’d put Frankie in the pen (honestly, I have trouble seeing him start) with a little bit more time to be that shut down late inning lefty. Add a healthy Corpas, Buchholz, and possibly Raffy and Beimel to that… and that’s one hell of a pen.
Here’s the thing though… I’m going to have a hell of a time tempering my expectations for this team during the offseason. Everywhere I look, I think to myself that there’s still a lot of potential yet to be reached with this club.
You know you want to check out Matt's Korea blog: http://koreamatt.wordpress.com
by MattTheRock on Oct 30, 2009 4:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why temper it?
It’s the offseason, time for big dreams.
by Muzia on Oct 30, 2009 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
well at least we aren't on the hook for
like 3 or 4 more years of Francis. Also Ubaldo’s contract always amazes me. He should really fire his agent. And we have 2013 and 2014 club options at like $10-$15 mm per year on him as well right?
by moomacher on Oct 30, 2009 9:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even better
$5.75 million in 2013
$8 million in 2014
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_contracts.aspx?sport=MLB&majteam=COL
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 30, 2009 9:40 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Francis
seems like he is intelligent enough to figure out how to pitch well with whatever he is throwing up there.
To all of the doubters, to all of the haters, one simple message:
We will be back! Our purple knights will be victorious once again.
by The Lodo Magic Man on Oct 30, 2009 10:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rule 5
Any thoughts on who will be protected from our minors this year?
by Bazeball on Oct 30, 2009 11:11 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
McKenry and Roe are probably guarantees to be protected.
I don’t know a lot about Garner or Escalona, or anyone else who is eligible that is not on the list, but they’ll probably protect as many as they can fit, as the Rockies don’t figure to want to Rule 5 anybody themselves, so they only need empty space to sign free agents.
by WolfMarauder on Oct 30, 2009 11:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I watched both Garner and Escanlona
here in Tulsa. Escalona throws HARD. But control seems to be an issue. Garner although his stats looked good to OK- I never really saw a game where he was just looked like an MLB player. Granted I only made 10 games or so this year. I really like McKenry.
by gordonrules on Oct 30, 2009 1:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
does Escalona fit in the Morillo category of AA guy?
To all of the doubters, to all of the haters, one simple message:
We will be back! Our purple knights will be victorious once again.
by The Lodo Magic Man on Oct 30, 2009 10:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure Morales' and Phillips' service time values are correct.
Morales has gained almost a year and a half’s worth from his pre-2009 service time, and Phillips has gained only about a week’s worth.
by WolfMarauder on Nov 6, 2009 1:20 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

by 

























