You're the GM! Comments

by David "ohno" on Aug 16, 2005 6:01 PM MDT Comment 36 comments

I'm not a frequent visitor and never post on John Sickel's site, but I decided to check out the segment that RBF pushed hard for. While there was some very enlightening points by some people, I was amazed at the majority of answers along the lines of fence moving, specialty pitchers, trading young guns, etc. To many gimmicks for me, and gimmicks won't win championships, but I know what does, and will share it with all of you guys because you are good blogging buddies. Are you ready for it? It is a simple six letter word...T-A-L-E-N-T.

Okay, now roll yours eyes and scoff, but don't press that "back" button on your browser just yet. The Rockies should be run no different than a normal franchise that adapts to the quirks of their home park, without the simple caveats that don't go beyond the extreme, like a priority on sinkerballers. This team simply has lacked the talent or the eye for it for too long. What starting pitcher have we had that was consistently dominant before or after Coors? Coors doesn't ruin good pitchers, because it doesn't know what one is yet. Mike Hampton? Please, we were warned. Kyle? He was a solid pitcher in St. Louis but wasn't a world-beater elsewhere, nor was he terrible here. Astacio? The golden boy of Colorado rotation alumni has never been confused with Pedro Martinez. Fact is, the Rockies have never had a proven stud pitcher to ruin, but it has had its share of less than mediocre ones.

Offensively, the team has tried to take average players and use Coors to make them appear above average, instead of taking great players and making them studs. While Blake Street's team of the mid-nineties had a nice run, remember, it was the steroid era and Bichette has admitted to andro, and the bullpen was one of the best in baseball. Recently, Helton and Walker have been premier players in Colorado that have unworldly numbers at home and great numbers on the road. Instead of pursuing impact hitters with early free agent money, the team spread it out over average-solid players thinking that Coors would change them. Coors doesn't change ability, it distorts it.

So that leads us to now. Teams can win here, but they need to use talented players, and yes, management has failed to see that. Just look at the farm system during the late 90's, early 2000's, how many impact hitters were produced? How many bonafide hurlers? The team has niche drafted for so long, until Geivett and Schmidt changed that course with the 2002 draft, and especially with the 2003 and beyond drafts. Instead of football-oriented outfielders, head case pitchers, or no high pick at all, they have blended tools with production and made several good moves. This goes for Dominican scouting too, we actually have some bonafide power hurlers since...well...ever? Morales, Morillo, Deduno and Jimenez are all still young, but all feature ace potential. I know this has gone on long enough, but consider it a preface before I use the comments to go in and discuss the positives and negatives I found in that discussion. Until then, feel free to rip this or praise it as you deem fit.

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]).

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have to agree with what you are saying

One of the posters said Jeff Francis was a "a luxury the Rockies can't afford" and "an anomaly" (at least for this season. I'll consider Francis' season an anomaly if in a few years he's career is nothing like now (either good or bad). Way to jump to conclusions during a pitcher's first season.

It seems that too many people are taking the mindset that "because it hasn't happened yet, that it never will happen" with the Rockies.

by Russ on Aug 16, 2005 6:20 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

It is the method at which things have happened that have caused this team to stagnate for so long. This team tried to tread water for too many years, hoping one mediocre free agent would breakout in Colorado. Now, the principles are fairly sound, but I think the execution has been poor. Still, this team is better off now than it was three-four years ago, with the players it has coming through the system. This offseason could be crucial to determining the future of this youth movement, and the chat at minorleagueball.com had some good suggestions as well as some poor ones. I'll start looking into some of the points made later this evening, especially third base, pitching and outfield.

by David "ohno" on Aug 16, 2005 6:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

The funny thing is that most of the people who make all these gimmicky suggestions for the Rockies aren't even fans of the Rockies. Now the guys over at Roxhead have some ideas that are, no offense, a little crazy, but they're well thought-out and do take into account the actual effects that playing at altitude has on players' bodies.

Baseball can't succeed in Colorado? When, exactly, have the Rockies had a roster that was built to succeed? The closest they had to one was in 1995, and that team went to the playoffs. The Rockies aren't 45-71 this season because of the altitude.

by Rox Fan in TN on Aug 16, 2005 6:45 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I've noticed that

That's part of the reason I don't post on that site, it isn't specialized enough. I may follow the Orioles some but am no Orioles diehard, and I don't think it is worth anyone's time if I try to get too in depth about a team I don't invest a lot of interest in, just to give an example.

You'd be foolish to run this team outside the standard allowances of the game. For starters, you cannot retain players or recruit them if your gimmicky ideals hamper their playing time, ability to perform consistently, or their ability to draw interest after their time in Coors. Pitchers are hard headed, they don't want to pitch in only one stadium or never at home, nor will they sign with teams that do that. Hitters are the same way. Instead, if you not let Coors be the determining factor in decision making, you will likely field a more competitive team.

by David "ohno" on Aug 16, 2005 6:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

absolutely 100% agree

You put the Cardinals or Yankees or even the A's at Coors field and you will win games. It really bothers me when people say you can't win at altitude. Denver had many successful minor league teams (albeit at Mile High Stadium) over the years and those teams weren't specifically built for Mile High--they had talent.

by DenverBears on Aug 17, 2005 5:56 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Observances on 3rd Base

The posters seemed a bit mixed on Atkins, but all tended to agree that Stewart was the guy. I'm not about to change that, but I am going to challenge those that believe Atkins should move to the outfield to accomodate him. I think he should move out of town when Stewart arrives. I've been a silent critic of Atkins, only chiming in here or there with certain points on his splits and abilities, but let's face it, he's been overhyped this year and lacks the skill set of an every day 3rd baseman. For starters, His splits are real bad, and offer a glimpse of the type of hitter he is, which is one that parlayed a big year at the Springs into ROY consideration. His extra base pop is non-existent on the road, and he has only average to below pop at home. His translated slugging is below .400, yet the team seemed eager to run him out there in the four hole every day during Helton's absence. Hmm...

What matters is he's 26 years old, meaning he's as close to a finished project as he's going to be, doesn't hit all that well, and lacks range in the field. In essence, he's altitude's version of Sean Burroughs. Jeff Baker deserves more of a chance than he's been given, but I don't harbor high hopes for him, but that is more than a personal hunch than any major statistical outlier, unless strikeout totals concern you. His injury history makes him tride rider material, and since that's less than what the Rockies would like on their investment, he has a chance to be a more athletic version of Greg Norton, which would be fine by me. Good programs know how to turn solid but unspectacular prospects into good reserves, just look at the Cardinals.

If I'm GM on this question, I don't turn down any solid offer for Atkins this off-season. Baker can start the season at third, and should he get hurt, wich is likely, than Gonzalez won't struggle to fill in for him. After next season, the point is moot anyways.

by David "ohno" on Aug 16, 2005 9:05 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

yes

You summed it up exactly: Atkins is the second coming of Sean Burroughs. San Diego fans can tell you where that story ends.

I kind of like Atkins, oddly enough, but I agree there's no point in keeping him even before Stewart arrives. Atkins would be better filler than Baker, IMHO, but any trade offer that comes around would be like found money. So yes, dish Atkins if a good deal somehow rolls around.

by wedge on Aug 16, 2005 11:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

100% OhNo. I just posted over there to see what others had to say....and to get the Rockies some recognition and to get some people thinking about our Rockies!!! haha.

But I agree with you--we need some actual talent.

Pitching wise, we have never had a stud. Hitting wise, Helton and Walker are the best we have had who would be All-Star performers consistently outside of Coors.

But I agree---y take an average hitter and turn him into an above average? Why not take an All-Star and maximize his abilitiy even more.

A couple years ago---this might sound crazy, but I wanted the Rockies to sign A-Rod, Kent, Vlad, and trade for Rolen. With the money that we spent on Hampton/Neagle, we could have signed A-Rod. Then, with increased revenue, we couldve signed Kent and Vlad. I had the thought--but of course it didnt work. I dont know about others--but we need "ALL-STAR" offensive players here at almost every position. Not average players that look above average due to Coors (Hammonds, Payton, etc).

And IMO, we need dominate, stud pitchers. Not average ones. You are right--we have never had the likes of players like Roe, Lindsay, Morales, Deduno, Morillo, Jimenez, etc. We have never had the top level pitching depth we have now.

Ok, I will stop my rant. Great post though!! I love your thoughts.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 17, 2005 1:05 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I posted there as well.

My handle on Sickels' board is Tcs5384. Basically voiced the same sentiments that are coming from over here. One poster actually bothered to look and find out that in 100 innings at Coors, Randy Johnson, Jason Schmidt, Roy Oswalt, Mark Prior and Tom Glavine had combined to have a 2.68 ERA.

by Rox Fan in TN on Aug 17, 2005 5:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I saw that....

to about that poster. It was great info. Look at the pitcher he mentioned. All are considered ace's, with the possible exception of Glavine, but he was considered one at a certain time.

Here is what bothered me the most about Hampton and Neagle: they walk too many guys. That KILLS you in Coors. They were not elite pitchers. Not a stud. They were average to above average.

Hampton's walk totals his 4 years before Colorado: 77, 81, 101, 99. He had NEVER had an ERA below 2.90, and that was in the Astrodome in Houston in 99, when he went 22-4. So what made him so special? His "sinker"?

Neagle wasnt even on the Yankees playoff roster in 2000. He had a 5.81 ERA...how does that consitute over $50 million over 5 years?? To me that doesnt.

The Rockies need studs at pitching--ok, here is what I would do.
---develop pitchers through international signee's and high-potential pitchers in the later rounds that fall, etc. I think the best way though that we have had recent success with is the international market. Sign the Deduno, Morillo, Jimenez, Morales, Lo, Tsao, Lindsay, etc type of guys.
---Draft a team full of offensive studs. Seriously. Guys like Stewart and Tulo are a start. Add them to Helton and we are getting somewhere. We need all-stars at pretty much every position.
---I like the idea of three "CF" in the outfield. Get guys like Andruw Jones, Tori Hunter, and Jim Edmonds. That is ideal. But they cant be 3 Pierre's out there.
---Have a dominate strikeout bullpen. I feel the more strikeouts you can get, the easier it is to get out of jams. Those guys that pitch to contact and get groundballs--that is great except when you have guys on second and third wiht nobody out in a 1 run game. Those are the situations where you need strikeouts.

That is just a little bit of what I think. Certainly there is some that will disagree, agree, etc, which is fine with me. I just think this is a general idea of what I have in mind.

I agree with OhNo...T-A-L-E-N-T wins games. Not speed, not this, not that, etc.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 17, 2005 3:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

My points exactly.

I want to move to So Cal, because apparently So Cal Bob or whatever his name is must have access to much better drugs than I do if he thinks Hampton is an ace.

The Rockies got fooled not only by Hampton and Neagle (okay, they didn't really get fooled by Neagle, they were just stupid) but also by Scott Elarton, who had a pretty fluky season in Houston in 2000 when he went 17-7 but had mediocre peripherals. And Darryl Kile an ace? I don't think the Rockies even expected him to be one. At least Kile had the K rate to (somewhat) support it.

by Rox Fan in TN on Aug 17, 2005 4:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct...

it was so cal bob! well, he does live in so cal....and with all of those drugs exported up through mexico, you never know!!...You are all the way up in TN!

As for Elarton....with Houston in 2000, yes he went 17-7, but you are right, he had bad peripherals.
192.2 IP, 198 H, 29 HR, 84 BB, 131 K.

That was his best year. He still allowed an outrageous amount of walks for not even topping 200 IP, had more hits than walks, and still gave up 29 HR!!

Then the year we traded for him, he was even worse! 7.14 ERA, 126 H in 109.2 IP, 26 HR, 49 BB, 76 K. So how is he supposed to be a stud that is able to turn it around in COORS of all places??

Kile you are right about. Kile's K # his last 2 years in Houston before coming to Colorado were 219 and 205. He also had a 2.57 ERA. So while he was closer to an ace than the other 3, I still dotn consider him an "ace".

We need dominate, hard throwing guys. Guys like Oswalt, Prior, Johnson, Pedro, etc. The ones that dominate, a pitcher that we have never had but some teams have an a never ending supply of them. We need some of our pitching prospects to pan out in the group that I mentioned....we can only hope. It looks promising right now.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 17, 2005 5:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing...

I do feel help is on the way though...you did mention those pitchers. Position player wise, we have some top talent coming:

C-Iannetta
MI-Nelson, Tulo
3B-Stewart, Baker
OF-Smith

Add in players like Holliday and Helton who are here, and I think it is coming along well.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 17, 2005 1:08 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Observances on pitching

My third segment to this diary, and I'm glad people are taking to this so well, and share similar opinions to me. In fact, I was thinking, if I still worked at the local sporting goods store, I's have the t-shirt guy print up several purple and black shirts that just had T-A-L-E-N-T across the front, and make it like the official phrase of the wise posters here at Purple Row. In other words, it was a very slow day at work, at least it's only temorary.

Back to pitching, and this is a potential bombshell; I'm glad Jason Young is gone, because it signals the end of the old niche pitching drafts. It had failure all over it, using unprecedented bonus money on a moderate ceiling pitcher simply because the team wanted to deflect negativity away from the Harrington debacle. If you're like me, you read your BA Handbooks from two-three years back every few weeks just to pick up on hints as to what type of players are hyped but struggle to succeed. So do this, get out your 2003 book and read the comments on Young. What about that description sets him apart from 100s of other arms trying to reach the majors from double A? In the end, he was just a guy, mediocre stuff, goofy arm motion, college injury history...

The pitching heavy drafts of that era produced oodles of 3-5 spot starters, with the best one (Westbrook) being shipped off. Basically, if their fastball sunk, we drafted them. Now I don't want to speak against sinkerballers, because I love them, but that narrow focus really hindered the pitching staffs of the last few seasons.

RBF has already said what I believe, sinkerballers are great fillers, but power pitchers win everywhere. We've started to use our foreign scouting to procure such, and while it is still early, I believe it has been a very successful endeavor, but it isn't enough. It is time we suck it up, and draft a prime college hurler to lead this staff. While I don't see anything wrong with high school arms, I just believe that our rookie systems are filled with good young arms that need quite a bit of polish in Roe, Simons, Rodriguez, Katz, Lindsay, Cedeno, etc. and we have a couple of A ball guys that will likely take each step on their way up, like Morillo, Morales and Deduno. A guy like Kennedy could reach Coors in two-three years, and has both a power repoitre and solid production, ala smaller hurlers like Oswalt and Hudson. Miller and Buck are also solid options. We've done great with position players recently, but the best way to fix pitching is to bring them in by the dozens.

In summation, keep the sinkerballers, they're reliable and can keep the team in games, but lets quit drafting them so early. It's time to bring in some power guys that can win games on their own for long stretches. Then, we will finally know the effects Coors has on a pitching staff, and I think we'd suprise some people.

by David "ohno" on Aug 17, 2005 8:49 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Pitching

You're right about power pitchers. One thing that you immediately notice about the "ace" starting pitchers of the past 20 years is that most of them tend to be power pitchers. There are exceptions -- Maddux, Glavine when the umps give him the outside corner -- but by and large the guys who develop into aces are guys who light up the radar gun. Even guys who are "sinkerballers" who know how to pitch tend to be middle-of-the-rotation pitchers, not aces.

The only reason I think the Rockies shouldn't have let go of Young is that, well, the Rockies aren't exactly loaded with starting pitching at this point. Who exactly do the Rockies plan to send out as their starting pitchers now?

by Rox Fan in TN on Aug 17, 2005 10:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Strange dayz

Yeah, why would they allow Young to get picked up like that? I know he isn't much of a prospect anymore but they might need bodies. Plus, he was signed for 2.4 mill or something like that. I'm sure the ownership just loves that bonus now.

This also shows a lot a faith in Zach Day.

Risky, Danny Boy.. very Risky.

by roxhead on Aug 17, 2005 11:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Young and pitchers

RFTN....When I sit back and look at the Young situation, and as the night goes on, I actually think it is the best move. Yes, I know, I am changing my stance. But I dont want to sound as though I am saying one thing, and now saying another and not supporting my previous claim. Who are we going to run out there? The guys we have now. He obviously was being passed up, and its not as though he was having an all-star season at AAA or had a spot in the rotation up here. At least O'Dowd is being honest:

Injuries and durability concerns led to the departure of Young, 25, a former Stanford All-American who was the Rockies' second-round pick (47th overall). Young suffered season-ending rib injuries the last two years. This season at Triple-A Colorado Springs, the Rockies moved Young to a sidearm motion, but he had difficulty recovering between starts. He was 9-8 with a 6.39 ERA for the Sky Sox.

"He's everything we want character-wise in a player, other than we just didn't see his stuff working here at all," O'Dowd said. "He might go somewhere else, get back up [to the Majors] and it'll work better, but we didn't think it was going to work here, certainly as a starter. And we just had some bullpen guys pass him by."

So not only did he have trouble recovering between starts, but it was more than that. I am happy to see O'Dowd say that even though he was great character-wise, they didnt see his ability working here. That tells me, personally, that all though character is a big issue, they are judging a player based on ability. I am also impressed personally to see DOD admit that he might go somewhere else and it work out. To me, it takes a lot of courage to stand up and say that about the pitcher that you gave a club record $2.75 million bonus, and then turn around and admit a wrong-doing and that it wasnt going to work.

Now OhNo...First, I agree with you on Young. I have every single Handbook since the first one came out in 2001, and actually I pulled that out today to see something....but the one pitcher that I think will have great success here as a sinkerballer and I am glad the Rockies drafted him, as like BA said, has #1 potential: Aaron Cook. But even he can be considered a power pitcher. He gets his fastball up into the 95-97 MPH range at times, while guys like Westbrook rely on movement and not power...

I think we are on the same page when it comes to the difference between sinkerballers and power pitchers. The foreign policy is indeed working, but like you said, it is early. We cant rely completely on the foreign system, all though I think that will be a big focus when it comes to power arms. You are right about the lower levels--while we do have the power arms that show promise, there is a lot of things each and every one needs to polish up. If there wasnt, they would be in the majors like Felix Hernandez.

You are right--the more power pitchers you get, whether through the draft or foreign signings, the more will pan out. You cannot rely on 4-5 pitchers, as more than likely only 1-3 will pan out and reach their potential. Many will turn out to be solid but never reach their full potential (Kerry Wood anybody?).

I agree about drafting sinkerballers. You can find them from rounds 5-20 with ease. I would say also draft power arms in the lower rounds, such as the Astros did with Oswalt. Power pitchers with real potential early.

But I do feel the Rockies are already starting that path. Look recently who the Rockies have brought in and become solid prospects, either through the draft or foreign-Morales, Morillo, Deduno, Jimenez, Lindsay, Rodriguez, Lo, Roe, even Hancock (though the problem he is having isnt helping, he has power pitches), Durden, etc. So I do feel that the Rockies are starting to take that path. Now they have the H.S. and foreign kids who will take longer to develop, now they need to get some college studs as you mentioned. I think it starts with Andrew Miller. They say he is the "Randy Johnson" of the Cape League.

Ok...I am going to stop rambling on. Just know I agree with you--and I feel we are on the same page.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 17, 2005 11:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

More on Young..

Was there an explination as to why he was put on waivers now?

I bet there's a trade cooking up and O'Dowd placed a bunch of players on waivers to set up the trade. Young was probably just one of those players and ODowd may have been caught by surprise that he was claimed. When they couldn't bluff the Indians into a trade, O'Dowd then just let Young go rather than pull him back.

However, there still might be a trade brewing... unless the trade involved Young, of course.

by roxhead on Aug 18, 2005 1:38 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted....

the explanation up there---he didnt fit into the plans with his "stuff", and he wasnt durable. He was having trouble recovering between starts, etc.

I dont see a trade brewing...they had to clear a 40 man roster spot for Greene, and they felt Young was the guy that should move on and try to get something going somehwhere else.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 1:57 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

More on J.Y.

"We had gone through some September call-up issues and he wasn't going to be a guy we called up," Rockies general manager Dan O'Dowd said. "We made a difficult decision because, obviously, he is a guy we invested a lot of money into, but we just felt it was a point in time that it was best for him to go somewhere else."

O'Dowd could not drum up any trade interest in the 25-year-old right-hander, most likely because of Young's history of injuries and his inability to incorporate some mechanical adjustments this season.

Young made his major-league debut in 2003, going 0-2 with an 8.44 earned-run average in eight games, including three starts.

His season was cut short because of back problems that later were revealed to be a stress fracture in his ribs.

Young went 0-1 last year, allowing 15 hits and 12 earned runs in 8 1/3 innings of two starts before another stress fracture in his ribs ended his season.

Young experimented with a lower arm slot this season to try to alleviate the rib problems, but right shoulder issues limited his ability to throw side sessions. That lack of durability precluded any attempt to groom Young as a reliever.

Young went 9-8 with a 6.39 ERA in 21 appearances this year with Colorado Springs. In his past three starts, he allowed 26 hits and 22 earned runs in 12 2/3 innings.

"His arm strength was continuing to decline in his last number of starts," O'Dowd said. "We held on as long as we could. We love the kid as a person. This guy's got great character. We just didn't see his stuff working here at all."

There you go roxhead...shoulder and durability problems...strength, aka velocity, declining....time for him to move on and try to make something of himself. I wish him the best.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 2:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Media..

Thanks for the info...

However, watch what you read and believe only some of it. There was a spot on the 40 man roster already open because of Dan Miceli going from the 15 day list to the 60 day list. They didnt need to waive Young for Greene.

Something happen and ODowd is spinning things. Now, we all know Young basically had no future here, but there hadnt been a word about his recovery time between starts until after he was lost. This is classic spin control.

Becareful..

by roxhead on Aug 18, 2005 9:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was

just assuming they need a spot on the 40....so thats why I said maybe.

But I do disagree with your assestment of what was happening/is happening. Just my opinion. I had heard before that he was unable to throw in between starts because of shoulder soreness. That is one reason why the Rockies used Sunny Kim in the doubleheader and didnt call up JY--was because he had shoulder soreness. That was the start of the end. Like DOD said, the past 3 starts, he has lost his arm strength.

I think DOD wanted to keep Young, as he was a great person and did have some talent, but not only that, they shelled out a club record in bonus money for him. But they came to the conclusion they held on as long as they could. I dont think anything is happening. DOD admitted that he was trying to drum up some trade interest, to at least get something, but nobody was interested in giving up something for him due to durability concerns, etc.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 11:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Suspicious mind..

I just like to have fun trying to read between the lines and when you see something that doesn't fit, it's always fun to step back and say.. "Hold on here for a moment. Something is fishy about the timing of the release."

And knowing what we all know about Danny Boy, then it gets fun to try and speculate.

I can pretty much guarantee that there's more to the story concerning Larry Bigbie and Eric Byrnes than what we've heard or read, but we'll never know from listening to O'Dowd or reading the local papers.

by roxhead on Aug 18, 2005 3:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Curious

hmm...I am a thinking man, but I dont try to analyze every little thing and try to take something out of it.

Regarding Byrnes and Bigbie...yes there was more to the trade--we were supposed to trade Bigbie to Boston for Shoppach and Stern, who would probably be our CF. But that didnt happen. In that respect, yes, there is more than just a Byrnes for Bigbie trade.

I dont think there is a reasoning behind every trade, release, etc other than that the person isnt performing or you feel you are improving your team, much as the Rockies felt they would by getting Shoppach. Much like the Rockies felt like Young, when they said they held on as long as they could.

Those are just my thoughts.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 3:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt it is a trade

it's more likely that a player currently not on the 40 man is needing that spot for a September call up, not a trade. Although it happen with Aquilino Lopez, it isn't that often that people are dropped before a trade. In fact, the only reason Lopez was dropped was because in our eyes we had "made a trade." I expect they are just clearing the way for a non-roster guy to get to Coors this September.

by David "ohno" on Aug 18, 2005 6:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

On your post RBF:

I just want to hit on one thing in your original post because everything else seems to sum up my thoughts. I intentionally left Cook out of the discussion on sinkerballers because he is a rare breed toolswise. I have little problems drafting a guy like Cook with that type of stuff, it does have ace potential. Still, he isn't a strike out guy, and requires a good defense to be successful. He's still way better than Jennings, Wright, Day or any other sinkerballer we trot out, but I see a Derek Lowe ceiling ather than a Kevin Brown one, which is fine if he isn't making Derek Lowe money. I just feel that our previous interest in drafting anything that sinks (other than Prince Fielder) isn't such a sound practice because of the typical career that type of pitcher has.

by David "ohno" on Aug 18, 2005 6:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

OhNo

agreed. I just mentioned Cook for everybody else so it didnt look as though I dont like him.

One thing we might disagree on a little--I think Cook does have Brown potential. That is saying a lot, but I feel he can at least become close. Brown didnt figure it out until he was 29, and Cook is starting to figure it out now. He has such and electric and power sinker, it is phenomenal. I do feel he has a very high ceiling, in the ace range.

You are right, I dont have a problem with sinkerballers, they just need to be power sinkerballers. Ones like Cookie that throw a sinker in the mid-90s, and not one in the high 80s/low 90s. We are in agreement on this though I feel.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 7:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm..

There's so many posts here that I might be off on where and who everyone is chating about...

Anyway..

I don't see Cookie as a Kevin Brown type pitcher. I know they both throw sinkers and all, but the ball moves different.

The closet Brown clone we have, and it's a very good clone I think, is Jamey Wright. However, Wright isn't a prospect anymore and won't be on the team next year because someone will offer him chunk of cash the Rockies can't or won't match.

On certain days Wright has, to me anyway, unhittable stuff. On those days you sit back and wonder what is up with this guy and why isn't he among the elite pitchers in the game when suddenly he appears totally disinterested and 4 runs have crossed the plate.

by roxhead on Aug 19, 2005 12:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

My

comments on this are on the website. www.5280sports.com/rox

by Sam on Aug 18, 2005 7:43 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Managerial Talent

It's not only on field where the team is lacking right now, but also in the coaching staff. When I read about Clint Hurdle getting uber impressed by Garrett Atkins making the most hard contact (while still also making many outs) I shudder. We need to find better talent evaluators, particularly at the Major League level. Right now the team doesn't have the goods up or down.

In that vein, I think it was a mistake to hire Jim Leyland and I think it would be a mistake to hire someone like Davey Johnson who are so set in their mindsets of team construction that they will fail to grasp really important parts at Coors like, let's say hitting the ball or taking a walk every now and then. Or not throwing walks as pitchers. Anyway, my two cents.

This has been a fantastic diary so far!

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2005 8:24 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

this has been a very hot diary....

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 3:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's hard for me

to dog Hurdle because I think he's a great guy and has a great demeanor for a this program, but he just doesn't get things sometimes. I would not like to see him leave, but I would understand it if a new front office saw fit to put in their kind of guy. Yeah, like we'd ever get a new front office...

by David "ohno" on Aug 18, 2005 6:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm somewhat in the same boat,

I don't want to dis too much on Hurdle because I feel for him and he hasn't been given much to work with, but at the same time, he hasn't exactly brought much out of what he's been given either. The coaching staff in general just doesn't seem to be able to get these kids to play with solid fundamentals. The front office is full of stand-up people too, and their actions are often misinterpreted or scrutinized a bit more severely than they should be, but it's the same situation, the end result has been pretty miserable right up to yesterday's sunk cost of Jason Young. Sometimes good moves just don't work out -everybody from me, to Baseball Prospectus to all sorts of other pundits thought that the Dustan Mohr signing was a windfall for our team, for instance- or well intended moves flop due to situations outside the team's control -like the Bigbie deal- and those are tough breaks, but the bottom line is the team hasn't been making the needed headway, and someday, somebody has to stand up and take accountability for that.

by Rox Girl on Aug 18, 2005 7:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

My sentiments exactly

Only one coach, Apodaca, do I have no sympathy for, because I don't see much effort being exerted, as that position seems to be theplace where most of our struggles exsist, and it isn't simply about the current talent. Bob's had several years to mold guys like Jennings and Chacon into the type of pitcher that can be a mainstay in the rotation, but neither has demonstrated enough control to ever sustain success over an entire season. Francis has taken major steps back control-wise under the watch of Apodaca. All managers make mistakes, but players go backwards under Apodaca. The sooner this is realized, the better.

O'Dowd always had promise as a stat-oriented GM, but I think he has a poor support group around him giving bad advice. One minute, he makes a saavy "moneyball" move, be it low risk or high (like Mohr) the next minute he takes a chance on a couple clueless "tools" guys (like Bigbie and Sierra) it is for this reason that O'Dowd will finally succumb to his critics and be removed from the position, but that won't happen until the Monfort's get their heads out of their...

by David "ohno" on Aug 18, 2005 7:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed...

I actually like Hurdle and O'Dowd. I think we as a fans would have a higher opinion of O'Dowd had he not signed Hampton and Neagle, which in turn handicapped this organization greatly. It was a mistake that we are greatly paying for.

I would love to see McClure up here over Apodaca. I think he gets the best out of the pitcher he has. He knows when and how to use a pitcher, and puts him in the best situation to succeed. JMO.

David

by Rockiesbiggestfan on Aug 18, 2005 7:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

O'Dowd

I was excited when the Rockies first got O'Dowd, but have soured on him over the years. His approach seems less stat-based and empirical than I had hoped. Instead, he gets fixated on different gimmicks or theories on how to win at Coors, which, near as I can tell, are not really based on facts.

Actually, I'll pose this as a question to everyone here--who seem to follow the Rockies and baseball much closer than I do--and seem stat savvy (you can all pat yourselves on the back). Is there any statistical evidence for sinkerballers performing better at altitude? How about guys with high GB:FB ratios? How about guys with 95+ fastballs? How about the three CF hypothesis--how many runs would actually be prevented by having 3 fast outfielders instead of one?---my guess is very few. Is there any evidence that pitchers who grew up pitching at altitude succeed at altitude? In general, what kind of hitters benefit most from Coors? Anyway, my point is this--a truly stat savvy GM would have a wealth of data to look at--baseball has been played at altitude in Denver (and Colorado Springs and Salt Lake City) for many years (and many of those teams were successful) and wouldn't have to guess and propose new theories every week. O'Dowd (or his successor) need to hire a Bill James like guy to figure this out--because he doesn't seem smart enough to figure it out himself.

by DenverBears on Aug 19, 2005 5:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs