Older Rockies Rookies

by deacs on Aug 20, 2010 8:50 PM MDT

David Pinto at Baseball Musings made a good point about the Rockies' development of players in regard to Hawpe:

I’ll also note that Hawpe is 31. Like so many Rockies, he came to the majors late, already in his prime at age 25. This served the Rockies well, as they were able to capture these primes cheaply, and have these players spent by the time they became free agents (see Garrett Atkins). Holding players in the minors is a good way for smaller markets to save money and still compete, but it also means it’s tough to build a good, long-term team.

This fits in with the point yesterday that the Rockies failed to recognize the proper time to trade both Hawpe and Atkins. As older players when they became full-time players, they weren't going to be the typical 28 year old big-time free agents no matter how good they became. This meant that the team controlled their peak seasons (26-28) rather cheaply, but that there was a high probability they'd experience age-related decline as they approached free agency (in their cases, at about 30-31 instead of 27-28).

As a consequence, there was a high probability that it would be hard to trade them and recoup value if they began to decline, or that, even if they performed well, they'd be too old to reach free agency (and get draft picks back) before becoming expensive road blocks for cheaper, as-good-or-better prospects.

(Part of the supposition I'm basing this entire opinion is that the team could have gotten by with Dex/Smith/Cargo/EY2/Murton, etc. I'm aware that, in hindsight, the injuries and growing pains that have occurred made this a tenuous proposition, but Hawpe didn't add much to the OF this year aside from stellar April hitting, and thus, even with the way things have gone, Hawpe's absence wouldn't have changed the current outcome.)

No matter what, Hawpe and Atkins were going to get paid more money for declining performance. With a record payroll of $84M this year, the Rockies were due for an influx of cheap talent and a purge of older, more expensive players. It didn't need to be a Marlins-type burn the house down turnover, but over the past couple of years they should have recognized that the roster needed to be turned over a bit in order to a) be flexible, and b) not end up with a bloated, older payroll.

If it feels like it was too soon for Hawpe to go, it's because it was: we saw the best of him because he came up as a ready-to-go player, but we didn't get to see that much of him because he came up at a later age. If that's how the team does business, it's smart, but they need to be able to deal with the back-end of that method. And that means putting the fans through a little bit of pain in order to sustain a winner.

Eat. Drink. Be Merry. But the above FanPost does not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or views of Purple Row's staff (unless, of course, it's written by the staff [and even then, it still might not]).

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ding Ding Ding

Brilliant post.

It’s frustrating that most people don’t realize that this is how the Rockies operate, and it’s — for the most part — a brilliant operation.

Let’s take Clayton Kershaw as an example. He came up to the bigs when he was 20 and will be a free agent at 27. He will be make the most money possible when he is in the middle of his prime — something his agent should be very happy about. With GenR (I feel like a turd after typing that expression), most players were in the middle of their prime during their cheapest years. It was how the Rockies could afford to make the World Series, essentially.

The team has gotten away from that in recent years with Tulo, Dex and others, but appear to be back on that track with their system. Let St. Louis pay Matt Holliday $16 million when he’s 37; we’ll gladly remember the days of paying him 500K when he was 26 and a far superior player.

by CSTsports on Aug 21, 2010 2:42 AM MDT reply actions

It's a good point with regards to Hawpe

but the conclusion “Holding players in the minors is a good way for smaller markets to save money and still compete, but it also means it’s tough to build a good, long-term team.” seems severely flawed to me, because isn’t that what the Rockies have done? This reads like there’s an imminent demise coming because the Rockies failed to get a return for Hawpe, and while there’s no doubt now that situation would be better if they traded him last winter, there’s not really a sign that the team is collapsing in on itself, like for instance we’ve seen with the Diamondbacks and now the Dodgers, in part because it’s still holding onto other older prospects, guys like Nelson, Garner, Rogers, Deduno etc.., who will be able to replace the value from Hawpe.

In short, I think the conclusion could as well be that a team like the Rockies is better able to stand screwing up the timing of losing players like Hawpe and Atkins because of the way it’s run.

by Rox Girl on Aug 21, 2010 8:02 AM MDT reply actions

I agree with your amendment to Pinto's conclusion

Having players for their 25-30 years, instead of 23-28 years, is not a death knell for the franchise. To be honest, I barely noticed the end of that sentence; everything before it was what I thought was insightful. My conclusion took a different tack than Pinto’s:

If that’s how the team does business, it’s smart, but they need to be able to deal with the back-end of that method. And that means putting the fans through a little bit of pain in order to sustain a winner.

I’d rather have the pain than have the organization announce that they’re doing the fanbase a favor by sending the player to a contender for nothing in return.

Scouting, drafting and good development will be what sustains the Rockies’ success. Having players last into their 30s would also be helpful, but the Rockies can’t necessarily control that. To the extent that more players will come up in the 24-26 age range, conditioning needs to be emphasized and position changes considered. I know trading well-liked players who still have potential to contribute is easier said than done, but it is done (NOMAH!) and in a lot of cases it doesn’t mean throwing up a white flag. Especially when you produce good talent as prolifically as the Rockies have done recently.

by deacs on Aug 21, 2010 10:40 AM MDT up reply actions