Monday Rockpile: Mediocrity or better for the Colorado Rockies in April

by Russ Oates on Mar 30, 2009 8:15 AM MDT in Rockpile

In yesterday's Rockpile, Rox Girl expressed her concerns over the April schedule. Troy Renck also has trepidation about April. Renck sees a tough early April for Hurdle and the Rockies, and If the team isn't mediocre the first month, Clint Hurdle won't be long for this team. Isn't "mediocre for April" one of those ritual spring training articles?

Mark Kiszla: Ian Stewart, the Great Rockies Hope.

While Franklin Morales appears to be the fifth starter in all but name, Tracy Ringolsby ponders if the Rockies will keep Morales on the roster at the start of the season and use him as a reliever before the team needs a fifth starter.

Matt Holliday tells everyone that we shouldn't worry about Troy Tulowitzki.

Sure, the pitching has been uneven this spring, but we shouldn't worry about it . . . yet.

Joe Koshansky is on the Texas Rangers's 40-man roster now, but Adam J. Morris of Lone Star Ball believes the club will try to slip him through waivers to get him off the 40-man.

Tweet Comment 68 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Stewart

Did Kiszla have a wet dream last night?

Has anybody written about how Stewart’s defense has looked at second in games and practices?

by deacs on Mar 30, 2009 8:33 AM MDT reply actions

Mark Kiszla is dumber than ten dogs.

Staying on the sunny side of Blake Street since 1993.
MHCSports - Denver sports analysis from Denver sports fans

by Franchise26 on Mar 30, 2009 9:07 AM MDT up reply actions

I usually do not like reading Kiszla

but I thought this article was half way decent and not as negative as he usually is. In fact, I actually agreed w/ a lot of what he said and I would like to see Stewart get the opporunity at 2B as well. The part I did not like is when he said Holliday mostly left because of wanting to win. I’m not sure that was an issue, since I never heard Holliday say the Rox were not commited to winning and in fact has been very complimentary of the talent on this team. I think it was a long term commitment, plain and simple. He wanted more years, and the Rox weren’t prepared to pay him to be unproductive. They moved in different directions and I don’t fault Holliday for wanting the stability to play in the same place for a long time (although I fault him for hiring Boras), and I don’t fault the Rox for thinking that was not financially responsible to the whole team. Its over and I still hope the best for Holliday, unless he ends up in the NL West.

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

by smokinRox on Mar 30, 2009 9:38 AM MDT up reply actions

"wanting to win" is Scott Boras code...

He teaches his clients to use it in lieu of “paying me a lot of money”. I wouldn’t be surprised if Matt or Boras used that in connection with the Rockies at some point, and it shouldn’t be held against Matt if he did, as he’s got every right to look out for himself. It does reflect poorly on journalists when they buy into that rhetoric so easily and repeat the Boras company line as though they were on Scott’s payroll themselves.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 10:00 AM MDT up reply actions

It's Scott Boras code for

“I want to play in a bigger market” (i.e. New York, Boston, whatever.)

by Tom (RFTN) on Mar 30, 2009 10:01 AM MDT up reply actions

Exactly

if being on a known winner was your requirement, given the parody in the league over the last several years, then I think that would limit you to the Yanks, Sox, and maybe Cubs. Obviously the Cubs haven’t won anything, but given the money spent they are perennial contenders, and I guess the Angels could be added as well.

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

by smokinRox on Mar 30, 2009 10:11 AM MDT up reply actions

Don't forget the Mets as a big market spender.

Not that it seems to do them a whole lot of good.

by pedalpusher on Mar 30, 2009 11:24 AM MDT up reply actions

Yes, but

that also assumes that any of those teams were in the market for Holliday.

Insert witty and/or humorous signature here.

by DbacksSkins on Mar 30, 2009 11:41 AM MDT up reply actions

Reporters

They buy into it because they use the same tired euphemisms when filing reports — it’s possible that sports blogs are becoming mainstream faster than any other sector of the news because newspaper reporters continually fail to recognize cliches and stop using them. They also are unable to recognize when they are pawns of the people they are reporting on.

Not to defend Boras, but who doesn’t say they want a chance to win when they get traded, or make a soft demand to be traded? It’s either that, or getting a chance to play regularly. And who wouldn’t use that language with the press, when they will ridicule you admitting that the goal is to maximize compensation. So long as you don’t explicitly talk about money, the guardians of the game will allow you to euphemize your way into villainizing whoever you want.

Besides that, it’s just the reality of business language. If you want a promotion at work, you wouldn’t go in and say that you think you’re worth more than what you’re getting paid. You’d talk about “wanting to grow” and “taking on additional responsibilities,” which are the workplace equivalent of “playing everyday” and “wanting to win.”

If you’re tired of seeing players get traded to the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, etc.. than you should be refreshed that the A’s are willing to spend a little more money than usual to win.

by deacs on Mar 30, 2009 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions

+1

Insert witty and/or humorous signature here.

by DbacksSkins on Mar 30, 2009 11:42 AM MDT up reply actions

How have the A's been proving that?

They gave up players, but no money to get Holliday, and most believe he will be gone from there either at the end of the year or mid-season. I don’t mind a player wanting to be paid fairly, and teams have a right to say no, so its fine that he’s moved on. I’m just saying using the phrase he moved along because he wants to win is a joke.

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

by smokinRox on Mar 30, 2009 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions

I agree

It is not like the A’s have really competed for that division since the Angels got good. Beane might be a genius but it really hasn’t payed off very much over the last five years or so. I guess we will see for sure this year but the Halos just look too stinkin good for anyone to catch them.

by RockiesDave on Mar 30, 2009 12:00 PM MDT up reply actions

Last 5? Not really, no

Just one division title (06). But the last 10 years? 5 playoff appearances. It’s gonna come around again, just you watch.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum - But be warned I only actually "tweet" every....well, not often.

by Andrew Martin on Mar 30, 2009 2:35 PM MDT up reply actions

Despite what they did last year

The Halos of ’09 look decent but not actually that good…

by Resolution on Mar 30, 2009 7:42 PM MDT up reply actions

A's Payroll

The A’s could have let cheaper, less experienced players fill Holliday’s role. Thy operated on MLB’s 3rd lowest budget last season. Typically, they eschew expensive free agents or expensive trades. The last time they paid an outfielder more than $10M was in 2004 (Jermaine Dye). Holliday will make $13.5M. That they’re willing to take on Holliday’s salary in this economic environment, rather than let payroll decline further, is an encouraging sign from a smaller market team (also resigned Mark Ellis, and signed Giambi and Cabrera). Five to ten years ago, small to medium market teams refused to do this. Imagine, say, if the Twins or A’s had been willing to do more of this in the first half of this decade.

There’s a difference in the A’s and Rockies’ owners’ outlooks going into this season: Lew Wolff (A’s) has already spent money to put a good product, and it is concievable that payroll can be added mid-season if they are in contention. The Monforts have already said payroll will likely not be added.

Also, “since the Angels got good,” which I guess was in 2002 when they won the WS, they’ve been to the playoffs 5 times, Oakland 3 times. If you go back to 2000, they’ve both been in the playoffs 5 times. Over the last five years, the biggest difference is that the Angels have made an ALCS appearance and the A’s have not. The Angels also operate on an entirely different budget than the A’s, so I don’t think that’s really an apt comparison.

The Angels look particularly weak this year. Their rotation is in bad shape. Saunders won’t repeat his ‘08 performance, Santana’s hurt, Lackey’s hurt, and Jered Weaver is just not good. Escobar has been hurt for over a year, and won’t come back until late April. Their primary offensive weapons, Guerrero and Abreu, are on the decline. They aren’t all that superior to the A’s, even on paper.

by deacs on Mar 30, 2009 3:08 PM MDT up reply actions

Jered Weaver is pretty awesome

I’d absofreaking lutely LOVE to have him here in Denver.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum - But be warned I only actually "tweet" every....well, not often.

by Andrew Martin on Mar 30, 2009 4:34 PM MDT up reply actions

Only if..

we could play Dream Weaver on a loop during his starts.

by deacs on Mar 30, 2009 10:10 PM MDT up reply actions

So long as you don’t explicitly talk about money, the guardians of the game will allow you to euphemize your way into villainizing whoever you want.

Hell of a line…

by Teekalong on Mar 30, 2009 12:44 PM MDT up reply actions

IAWTC

Insert witty and/or humorous signature here.

by DbacksSkins on Mar 30, 2009 12:53 PM MDT up reply actions

Morales

Having him as a reliever until a fifth starter is needed was something that I recommended in the game thread yesterday. He’s got great stuff, you won’t burn an option by sending him down for a couple of weeks, and you don’t keep a Fogg/Belisle on the team. Win-win-win.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 8:53 AM MDT reply actions

Also, if Smith looks to be shut down for a while...

he’s a candidate for the 60 day DL, which would open up another spot on our 40 man roster…just sayin’.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions

It could also help limit his innings, which for a young guy might not be so bad.

"Better move your rental cars, I am about to take BP."
-Glendon Rusch

by Hizilla on Mar 30, 2009 9:11 AM MDT up reply actions

Hate doing this

But with work and spring sports for the kids – time is limited. Would someone enlighten me on what roster battles we have left? Seems like most things are figured out.

TGFPR!!

by jlot10 on Mar 30, 2009 9:17 AM MDT reply actions

I think it's pretty much down to the last decision or two...

Morillo and Speier are both in for now. Murton is in. Franklin Morales is in, it’s just a matter of whether it’s early April or late, and Ian Stewart seems pretty much in at this point. CarGo for sure and Fowler most likely are headed to AAA. What seems left to be decided is Jeff Baker’s fate and whether the Rockies keep a sixth outfielder such as Podsednik or whether they go with another reliever (probably another swing arm like Belisle or Fogg) or just use Morales as one until he’s needed to start.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 10:09 AM MDT up reply actions

Any chance

in your mind Stewart starts, either in LF or 2B?

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

by smokinRox on Mar 30, 2009 10:12 AM MDT up reply actions

nope, not yet.

Look for him to gradually take over the 2B position like Chris Iannetta did last season. Hurdle has to get comfortable with the idea of starting him there, particularly if the Rockies aren’t going to be trading Atkins (which I still think they will). There won’t be enough of a difference in what he brings to left over what Smith does to change that situation, Smith’s going to pleasantly surprise a lot of Rockies fans this season it looks like, given how eager everybody is to replace him already.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 10:17 AM MDT up reply actions

I like Smith

too, and I am not ready to replace him, in fact I would rather see Stewie at 2B. I wouldn’t even mind Baker at 2B, I just have never been sold on Barmes’ ability. I like his D, but the whole package is not something I’m high on. It seems like the “powers that be” really like Barmes though, and will not give up on the idea of him being a starter.

It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

by smokinRox on Mar 30, 2009 10:31 AM MDT up reply actions

Agreed.

I still think it’s possible that the Rockies will go with a platoon between Smith and Murton in left — maybe not a strict platoon, but Smith will probably get most of his days off against left-handed pitching. But he should be starting in left field.

by Tom (RFTN) on Mar 30, 2009 10:32 AM MDT up reply actions

You think so?

Given Hurdle’s reluctance to give Stewart any playing time at 2B this spring, I have a hard time seeing Hurdle become eager to make him the starter. I’m not saying I agree with it, but unless the offensive result gap between the two grow ridiculously wide (like CDI and Yorvit), I just have difficulty seeing Hurdle pull that trigger.

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

by Andrew T. Fisher on Mar 30, 2009 12:22 PM MDT up reply actions

I think what will eventually do it is Stewart's road performance relative to Barmes

Hurdle will get used to penciling him in at second on away trips when he helps us when a few, and gradually it will carry over to homestands as well.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions

Sixth outfielder?

Are we counting Stewart as an outfielder at this point? Not counting Stewart we have four (Hawpe, Spilly, Smith, Murton.)

by Tom (RFTN) on Mar 30, 2009 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions

I think he really has to go to 2B

there is just too much of a log jam at LF with Smith, Pods, or possibly Oreitmier. I agree the Baker will probably be traded and I have always liked Barmes for his work ethic and never quit attitude but I think we need to have both Smith and Stewarts bats in the line up.

by RockiesDave on Mar 30, 2009 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions

I also forgot about Murton

by RockiesDave on Mar 30, 2009 11:04 AM MDT up reply actions

I guess I must count Baker and Stewart as half an outfielder each.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 10:56 AM MDT up reply actions

Deac

What is your take on Stewart defense in games and practise at second base?

by roxtalk on Mar 30, 2009 10:50 AM MDT reply actions

Kiszla on Stewart

Am I the only one that thinks Kiszla is a little nuts when he says Stewart could be the difference betwen 75 or 85 wins? I like Stewart and think he could be an impact player, but 10 games seems like a lot for a single player with little big league experience. RockiesMagicNumber, isn’t there some sort of sabremetric stat that measures that sort of thing? If Stewart is a full-time guy and a 25 HR, 100 RBI guy like Kiszla thinks he could be, what do you think that would translate to in additional wins for the team?

by RockiescastScott on Mar 30, 2009 11:00 AM MDT reply actions

Ten W's is at the upper end of superstardom,

So Kiszla is exaggerating in that. Matt Holliday’s 2007 was worth 7.8 wins according to FanGraphs, Helton’s 2000/2001 seasons were around 9 wins apiece. Barry Bonds’ 2002-2004 run was 13.7, 10.7, 12.3. Ten wins may require more than just talent for Stewart.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 11:11 AM MDT up reply actions

Really what this means is that Kiszla's starting to realize that this team could be pretty darn good this year

And he doesn’t want to get caught with his foot in his mouth like he was in the 2007 campaign. By hyping Stewart now he’s covering his “what-if” bases in case things actually go right for the Rox.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions

Yea

If Stewart were to put up his Chone projection numbers and Tulo and Helton had seasons like they did in ’07 that might translate into something around 10 wins…

by Resolution on Mar 30, 2009 7:54 PM MDT up reply actions

Opening another NRI spot...

The other possibility with the Koshansky move is that the Rockies are going to leave the 40 man roster spot open and pick up somebody else that is put on waivers in the next week. There are a lot of teams making such moves, and there is usually at least one diamond in the rough to be found. The Rox may be positioning themselves for such a move here.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 11:00 AM MDT reply actions

that sounds like possible good news

by RockiesDave on Mar 30, 2009 11:01 AM MDT up reply actions

yep I agree

here’s a name that might be available: Brad Penny

President of the "Sign Pedro Martinez Angry Mob" (fan club didn't make sense)

by Redhawk on Mar 30, 2009 11:02 AM MDT up reply actions

No chance

the Rockies add 5Mil in payroll. Keep looking for that diamond in the rough.

"Better move your rental cars, I am about to take BP."
-Glendon Rusch

by Hizilla on Mar 30, 2009 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions

Sky Sox 1B?

Who is going to man 1B for the Sky Sox? Also, looks like another Purp gets scratched from the list. Will we be getting a chance to update the list again after the season starts?

TGFPR!!

by jlot10 on Mar 30, 2009 11:03 AM MDT up reply actions

It could create an opening for Jeff Kindel,

And both Ortmeier and Colonel have experience there.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 11:14 AM MDT up reply actions

Anyone else see

that Colonel actually spent some time catching BP sessions this spring?
Eli Marrero Jr.

"Better move your rental cars, I am about to take BP."
-Glendon Rusch

by Hizilla on Mar 30, 2009 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions

I think Colonel is one of the most versatile guys we got.

by pedalpusher on Mar 30, 2009 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions

Too bad he doesn't really have a bat to back up said versatility

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum - But be warned I only actually "tweet" every....well, not often.

by Andrew Martin on Mar 30, 2009 1:57 PM MDT up reply actions

It's a good enough bat for benchwork.

I think he’s one of those guys that Colorado Springs might be hurting in park/league translations. He’s not going to hit for power at the MLB level, but he’s not going to lose as much of his average/OBP as straight translations would suggest.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 3:20 PM MDT up reply actions

which is a good point

It’s gonna be the translation from AAA pitching to MLB pitching.

I never really looked at Baker’s AAA numbers, Colonel might have him beat there.

And while I’d miss Baker’s power bat, I’d be content with just an OBP guy.

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/rockiesmagicnum - But be warned I only actually "tweet" every....well, not often.

by Andrew Martin on Mar 30, 2009 4:40 PM MDT up reply actions

I think his bigger issue may be with the glove...

He’s a jack of all trades, but not really average at any of them let alone a master.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 4:50 PM MDT up reply actions

RG

looks like another Purp gets scratched from the list. Will we be getting a chance to update the list again after the season starts

I’ve been meaning to ask you the same thing

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

by Andrew T. Fisher on Mar 30, 2009 12:24 PM MDT up reply actions

Yes, we should soon, I want to see where everybody's assigned, though, as that's usually a good indicator

Of who’s outperforming or underperforming expectations.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 12:34 PM MDT up reply actions

Sounds like a good plan to me

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

by Andrew T. Fisher on Mar 30, 2009 12:38 PM MDT up reply actions

Or perhaps...

Jeff Niemann might be available? I’d love to have him.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 11:11 AM MDT up reply actions

http://www.draysbay.com/2009/3/30/815265/tampa-bay-rays-san-diego-p

Padres maybe interested in Niemann?

by moomacher on Mar 30, 2009 11:15 AM MDT up reply actions

whoops

link here

by moomacher on Mar 30, 2009 11:16 AM MDT up reply actions

I'd be salivating.

"If we never try, we shall never succeed." - Abraham Lincoln

Purple Row - Covering all your Rockies needs!

by Russ Oates on Mar 30, 2009 11:21 AM MDT up reply actions

Heck, I'd offer the Rays

A package involving Deduno for him…because if he hits the waiver wire he’s not falling past San Diego.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 11:23 AM MDT up reply actions

This doesn't make much sense,

The Rays would be cutting Niemann to open a slot, Deduno requires another. Besides, I’d wait until you know what the Rockies do about Deduno before making that call, it might be that we have the better pitcher right now.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 11:30 AM MDT up reply actions

So who on our roster would entice the Rays to move Niemann?

by pedalpusher on Mar 30, 2009 11:32 AM MDT up reply actions

He's out of options now...

so Tampa’s leverage is severely reduced. I would think that a couple of our far-away (cost controlled with options) high upside pitching prospects should be enough.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 11:35 AM MDT up reply actions

Probably any of the guys Jabberwocky mentions below,

I’d go so far as offering Connor Graham.

by Rox Girl on Mar 30, 2009 11:36 AM MDT up reply actions

I agree. With Deduno

I was almost picking a Rockies pitching prospect at random—I’m really high on Niemann. Give them Roe, Weiser, somebody like that. I’d happily part with them to get Niemann.

Eschew Obfuscation!

by Jeff Aberle on Mar 30, 2009 11:33 AM MDT up reply actions