Sunday Rockpile: Tender is last night...

by Rox Girl on Dec 13, 2009 10:06 AM MST in Rockpile

So last night's deadline to tender contracts to players came and went without the fanfare that was expected by many. The Rockies provided one of the biggest names on the non-tender list with Garrett Atkins, but several other players rumored to be cut loose either reached deals with their teams or were at least tendered offers.

The Dodgers tendered contracts to all nine of their unsigned players still in team control, proving wrong some of the most dire reads on that team's finances. Actually, on the whole, MLB teams seem to be a bit more healthy economically than many predicted. Other players tendered contracts that were earlier rumored to be on the bubble included Kevin Correia of San Diego, Corey Hart of Milwaukee, Dioner Navarro of Tampa Bay and almost all eligible players from Minnesota and Florida.

The cases of players that were non-tendered fell into two categories: players that are clearly declining in production and not likely to be worth their arbitration awards like Garrett Atkins or Jack Cust or Ryan Garko, or players coming off of or entering lost seasons due to injury like Chien Ming Wang or Jose Arredondo. Perhaps the most curious case to me is that of John Buck of Kansas City, who doesn't project to be that much worse than Jason Kendall, but would likely be willing to sign for quite a bit less than the $3 million a year that the team is giving Kendall. The Royals spent the difference for roughly a quarter of a win, which given the state of that franchise seems beyond pointless.

With Buck entering the FA market, it adds one more potential target for the Rockies should Yorvit Torrealba not re-sign with the club. Torrealba returning still seems the most likely outcome, as I haven't seen signs that the interest in him from other teams still looking for catching help outweighs that of the Rockies.

Wang seems to be the non-tender that is getting the most interest from clubs right off the bat, but former Brave Kelly Johnson might be a more interesting player to look at for the Rockies as a utility infielder/complement to Clint Barmes, although his left handed bat doesn't help one of the Rockies primary off season goals. Garko would be almost ideal if he could play third base, but since that's not going to happen, he too seems unlikely to be of interest to the Rockies. Basically that's the situation with almost all of these players, some fatal flaw makes signing them to anything more than a minor league contract with a NRI to spring camp risky.

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Resign Torrealba

Sign Garko, Sign Hudson, trade Hawpe. That would be a nice end to the offseason.

by mkorpal on Dec 13, 2009 11:50 AM MST reply actions

To add

It’s too bad we don’t have the cash to do that.

by mkorpal on Dec 13, 2009 11:50 AM MST up reply actions

except for the torrealba part

yea

by Jim Jiminez on Dec 14, 2009 10:04 AM MST up reply actions

got it, you don't like torrealba

everyone write that down

Hope got in my eyes

by Andrew Martin on Dec 14, 2009 10:50 AM MST up reply actions

I'm pretty sure

Matt Capps will be grabbed up quickly, too. Seems we’re OK bullpen-wise but worth thinking about.

by Since1993 on Dec 13, 2009 11:52 AM MST reply actions

If we (or anyone) got Capps

would he be under team control (arbitration eligible) for like one or two seasons or is he just a pure FA at this point and subject to whatever contract he signs?

"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 Dec 13, 2009 12:04 PM MST up reply actions

Pure free agent I believe.

by mkorpal on Dec 13, 2009 12:07 PM MST up reply actions

Service time constraints still apply.

Capps would be arbitration eligible.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 12:19 PM MST up reply actions

Are you sure?

So, he would still be under team control. As in, you sign him for one year but he still has another year of team control?

by mkorpal on Dec 13, 2009 12:25 PM MST up reply actions

Yep

This is the case with all of the NT guys.

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 12:26 PM MST up reply actions

I did not know that. Thanks.

by mkorpal on Dec 13, 2009 12:27 PM MST up reply actions

Rox

could sign Josh Whitesell and control him for 5 years. Not that they’d want to.

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 PM MST up reply actions

More than that.

He’d be under two. This is Capps’ first year of arbitration eligibility. Unless he is signed to a multiyear deal, he’ll be arbitration eligible for 2011 and 2012.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 PM MST up reply actions

Yea

This changes everything, if he was just around for a year then I’d be inclined to agree with mkorpal, but since he’d be around for two, I think taking a chance on him would be good – especially since I think Belisle isn’t good…

"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 Dec 13, 2009 12:53 PM MST up reply actions

Well, Capps wouldn't be replacing Belisle on the roster.

I think if we were to sign Capps, Daley would be the casualty via optioning.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 1:04 PM MST up reply actions

You're probably right about that

as we’d just lose Belisle right? (Unless he were to accept a minor league role?)

"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 Dec 13, 2009 1:18 PM MST up reply actions

We'd have to at least risk it.

But beyond that, it isn’t just a matter of convenience, and more that Belisle is going to be used as a long reliever, something that Capps won’t be.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 1:23 PM MST up reply actions

True that

I wasn’t sure if Belisle was our long man.

Damn, I really wanted to capitalize off of a stupid move by the Pirates…

"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 Dec 13, 2009 1:27 PM MST up reply actions

Not hard

The Pirates are bound to make another stupid move sooner or later, or are they out of people to get rid of already? ;)

by KelseyC on Dec 13, 2009 8:52 PM MST up reply actions

Poor Pirates :(

And Welcome to the Row!

by Muzia on Dec 13, 2009 8:57 PM MST up reply actions

Sounds like

EVERYONE is interested. Can’t believe they didn’t get anything in trade for him.

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 1:16 PM MST up reply actions

yeah, I was of the impression that huntington was doing an ok job

but then again, it’s a pretty poor organization

Hope got in my eyes

by Andrew Martin on Dec 13, 2009 2:20 PM MST up reply actions

I don't see much room in the pen

Unless they dump Corpas. As of now, we have Street, Bets, Daley, Morales, Corpas, Flores, Belisle. And we have a ton of guys who could step up and also enter the pen at some point next season; specifically Buchholz, Weathers, Deduno, Rodgers, Chacin, Lindsay ect. At this point, it seems like a waste to go after pen help.

by mkorpal on Dec 13, 2009 12:07 PM MST up reply actions

Blue Jays signed Buck.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 11:53 AM MST reply actions

decent choice IMO

Hope got in my eyes

by Andrew Martin on Dec 13, 2009 2:20 PM MST up reply actions

What about

Fernando Tatis or Mark Loretta (are they both available?) for our right handed 1b/3b bench player role? Both have some good pop off the bench (or maybe just Tatis), and both have some good veteran intangible whatevers.

"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 Dec 13, 2009 12:20 PM MST reply actions

Tatis' name has been brought up many times.

It’s a starting point. I’d prefer Tatis over Loretta, or over Melvin Mora.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 12:54 PM MST up reply actions

Yea, I totally brought up Tatis

like no one had mentioned him. guilty. Yea I feel like Mora would try to command some amount of money he’s not worth… What would be really cool would be if we just traded Baker for that Albeuqueruqeruruqer guy and then the Cubs just non-tendered him and we got him back since he seems like the perfect low-cost person for this job…

"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 Dec 13, 2009 12:59 PM MST up reply actions

Atkins Minor League Deal?

Is there any chance that Atkins would come back on a minor league deal, with a decent salary if he makes the/a major league roster? Would seem to be mutually beneficial. I’m assuming he could get a major league deal somewhere, but this wouldn’t be a bad way for him to rebuild value.

by deacs on Dec 13, 2009 2:01 PM MST reply actions

Considering some teams are looking at him even as a starter, we probably can't have that discussion until he doesn't get any major league offers from other teams.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 2:09 PM MST up reply actions

But more importantly

why would we want to?

He had the chance to take their offer of a multi-year deal a couple of times. He chose not to sign.
He blew it and now he gets to take less..

The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.

by rockieprogress on Dec 13, 2009 2:15 PM MST up reply actions

Short question

Has Atkins shown any interest whatsoever in returning to the Rockies in 2010? It’s not like we did anything bad, we started him more than we should have in the regular season, gave him postseason time, and he had to have known that with the way he played, that he wasn’t going to be paid 7 mill, no matter what.

Impossible not to have positive thoughts.

I want Sam Deduno to pitch already.

by bballrox4717 on Dec 13, 2009 2:18 PM MST reply actions

I think he

would be open to returning but he knows that his playing time will be about what it was near the end of the season. He had probably resigned to knowing he will not be on the team next year and is looking for a new spot long before this non-tender deadline.

JFK

by jrockies on Dec 13, 2009 2:21 PM MST up reply actions

It's actually an interesting question

I have a hard time believing anyone is actually going to give him a starters job, besides maybe Ed Wade. He probably stands to play the most if he were to stay with the Rox.

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 3:41 PM MST up reply actions

Well, Wade did sign Feliz

so, Feliz is Atkins’ backup?

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein

by Andrew T. Fisher on Dec 13, 2009 5:20 PM MST up reply actions

The Twins were considering it at one point.

by Greg Stanwood on Dec 13, 2009 6:02 PM MST up reply actions

The Twins know better...

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 6:56 PM MST up reply actions

Random Question

My mother and I are having a dispute over the meaning of the blackout restrictions on MLB.com’s online streaming of games. She thinks that they mean we would not be able to watch any Rockies games. I think we would merely not be able to watch the games that FSN doesn’t have. Who is right?

Foxes are naughties

by crazedjohn on Dec 13, 2009 3:28 PM MST reply actions

Where do you live?

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 3:41 PM MST up reply actions

Fort Collins

Foxes are naughties

by crazedjohn on Dec 13, 2009 3:52 PM MST up reply actions

It depends where you are

If your in Colorado, which I assume you are I think you are right. I have the MLB TV package not the MLB.com package but I think the black out rules are the same. For every game, I get two broadcasts of it. For instance, if the Rockies are playing the Dodgers, I can either watch the Fox Sports RM version (Rockies feed) or the LA version with Vin Scully (Dodgers feed). The only game I can’t watch both versions for is Red Sox games because I am in Rhode Island which is part of the Red Sox TV zone. (So if the Red Sox are playing the Rays I would only be able to watch the Red Sox version of the broadcast because the Rays version would be blacked out in my area. It’s not a big deal though because I’d still be able to watch the game)

So assuming MLB.com’s blackout rules are the same at the MLB TV package which I’m pretty sur they are, you should be able to watch all Rockies games you would just have to watch the Rockies feed just like I can watch all Red Sox games I just have to watch them on the Red Sox feed.

If you have anymore questions don’t be afraid to ask. I’ll tell you everything I know about how the TV package blackout rules work.

I wonder if Bud Selig will give the Yankees a receipt with their World Series purchase

by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Dec 13, 2009 3:54 PM MST up reply actions

Thanks

I’m excited to finally be able to watch the Rockies, much though I have appreciated Jeff and Jack.

Foxes are naughties

by crazedjohn on Dec 13, 2009 4:02 PM MST up reply actions

Out of curiosity

Do you have a copy of the MLB.com blackout rules? I can’t find them.

I wonder if Bud Selig will give the Yankees a receipt with their World Series purchase

by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Dec 13, 2009 6:39 PM MST up reply actions

I pay for the

mlb.tv package every year, and I can never remember being able to watch the Rockies on there while in Denver (or anywhere else in Colorado or the Rockies TV region). Without oversimplifying it, if you live somewhere you can get FSN-Rocky through your normal cable/sat package, you won’t be able to watch the Rockies on mlb.tv
Somebody feel free to tell me I am wrong, because frankly I rarely even tried to watch the Rockies on it the last couple years when I was in Denver.

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 6:59 PM MST up reply actions

I tried it this past year after I moved

and I had serious issues trying to catch games because of blackout issues (I live in Boulder)

I would have to change my IP settings to go through a Chinese or Indonesian proxy to see games sometimes.

by Muzia on Dec 13, 2009 8:59 PM MST up reply actions

Yea

the only times I remember being able to get it while in Denver was when I would be VPN’d through my work server that made it look like I was in New Jersey.

by Hizilla on Dec 13, 2009 9:09 PM MST up reply actions

Unfortunately this makes sense

The MLB TV package must let you watch games in your own reigion (you just have to watch your local/home team’s feed) but the MLB.com package won’t allow you to watch your local team without purchasing the actual TV channel from your cable/satellite company.

I don’t know this for sure I am just combining what I know and what Hizilla and Muzia said. Apparently the blackout rules for the MLB.com package are different than those from the TV package.

Is there anyway to outsmart it by making it think it is in a different part of the country like Muzia was saying?

I wonder if Bud Selig will give the Yankees a receipt with their World Series purchase

by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Dec 13, 2009 10:48 PM MST up reply actions

Here's an interesting map on the subject

It shows where each team’s TV zone is located. Looks like Iowa is claimed by about five different teams.

Here’s the map

I wonder if Bud Selig will give the Yankees a receipt with their World Series purchase

by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Dec 13, 2009 10:55 PM MST up reply actions

After moving to Utah from San Diego..

I discovered that Wednesday and Saturday games were blacked out on MLB.tv and that all the playoff games were blacked out. Furthermore Diamondback games were blacked out and anything receiving national coverage, so pretty much the last two weeks of the season. It really sucked.

When I was living in San Diego every game was available except for Padres home games.

Donate to charity by shopping for Purple Row Merchandise at:
Purple Row Cares

by Charlie77 on Dec 14, 2009 10:36 PM MST up reply actions

Here's a letter I sent to MLB.com about the issue:

Why has every Rockies game this week been blacked out? The restrictions say
Wednesday and Saturday, but it’s sunday. Also Friday’s game was blacked out
in LA? Seriously you guys suck. What’s the point of paying for this service
if I can’t watch my favorite team?

Charlie – 10/04/2009 03:57 PM

and this was the response I received:

Thank you for your email.

Blackout restrictions is not an MLB.com policy. We need to follow the National Black Out rules promoted by the television networks and other entities. TV networks bought the rights to broadcast the games in their viewing areas and MLB.com respects and follows these blackout rules.

You can still access the game on MLB.com 45 minutes after its conclusion through our archived game. This way you can view the game at your leisure and watch all the great plays. You can monitor the live game by listening to it through Game Day Audio.

Should you have any further questions please contact Customer Service toll-free at 1-866-800-1275.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,
MLB.com Customer Service

Donate to charity by shopping for Purple Row Merchandise at:
Purple Row Cares

by Charlie77 on Dec 14, 2009 10:40 PM MST up reply actions

So basically it's not worth getting

Or at least that’s what I’m hearing.

I thought the TV MLB package was great though. I had very little trouble with it. It seems the only place the MLB.com thing would be worth it is in a situation like mine where the Rockies are never playing nearby and I don’t have to worry about blackouts

I wonder if Bud Selig will give the Yankees a receipt with their World Series purchase

by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Dec 14, 2009 11:28 PM MST up reply actions