i think there's a mentality among their management, and it extends to the fanbase, that teams like the rockies and other "bottom feeders" (read: anyone with a payroll under $120 million) exist only to send good players to the big market teams whenever it's convenient.  i was listening to mlb on xm yesterday and a string of red sox fan callers were discussing with the host that while dealing for helton would be "nice", instead, dealing delcarmen and/or hansen to the phillies for cole hamels (!) is a deal that "makes a lot of sense for the red sox right now".  oh really?  you think?  yeah, youre right, giving up 1 or 2 pretty good but not outstanding prospects for a guy who was a more than outstanding prospect, looks like the real deal so far in the bigs, and has been compared to steve carlton DOES make a lot of sense for the red sox.  i mean, it wouldn't make sense for very many other teams, but for the red sox... well that's different.  of course very little was made of the concept that maybe, just maybe, the phillies might want to hold onto hamels for the time being.  maybe.  

sorry for the tangent, that whole experience along with the pathetic offer theyre making for todd right now just really chaps my ass.  they dont seem to have much of a grasp on the two-way-street concept inherent in trading items of value.

on one last side note, wasnt there a shady deal two offseasons ago where the sox had agreed to trade us that catching prospect shoppach, then reneged saying they wanted to keep him, then traded him to san diego like a week later?  yet another reason we shouldn't trade them the face of our franchise for 2 bad contracts and some cash.

Getting a top prospect may be asking a little much, but it's better not to trade Helton than trade him and not get such a player in return.

How can you possibly call this anything other than a salary dump? Slaughterhouse Charlie already said that he doesn't want one player (Helton) to consume such a large chunk of the Rockies total salary.  Obviously that percentage is so skewed because the Rockies overall salary is so small anyway compared to the rest of baseball.  I don't believe anymore in the concept of salary relief.  That money doesn't get reinvested in the team.  It just goes into old Meathead's pocket.

I recognize that Helton will cost the team more than he produces over time so that by 2011, Todd won't be worth what he's paid but that's the downside to a long-term deal and you know that going in but it's worth it to lock up your star player and send him off to retirement and maybe the Hall in your cap.

I can even see trading Helton, if we get a load of prospects like in the Angels deal (Kotchmann, Aybar, Mathis) but this is a giveaway pure and simple.  We need Lowell for what, actually?  Tavarez?  Had him already, uneven results.

If this deal goes down, S** the Rockies, I'm done.

I've been a fan since day one.  Been going to games since Mile Hi.  Got the T-shirt with the RMN front page announcing the team.  Rox Girl, I love your blog and I'm impressed with your unswerving support for the Rockies and your optimism but if you can justify this, your last name's Monfort or you're not just drinking the Kool-Aid but shooting it into your arms.

The first point Rosy tries to make is that the Rockies lost out on an opportunity to use salary relief in the open market by not trading Helton at the "meetings."  Really Kenny?  What would Colorado have done with that money?  Certainly, the Rockies would not have take this savings and then dumped it into another long term commitment free agent, and an average one at that.  With say an extra eight million, would the Rockies blow it on Jeff Suppan?  Yeah...that looks even more fiscally responsible.

But wait, you say, they could have made a more competitive offer for Jennings.  Could they?  What evidence do we have that Jennings' group was negotiating in good faith.  a generally mum-on-players (until recently) Monfort openly whined that Close wouldn't even counter the Rockies offer.  There's too much evidence to support the belief that Jennigns was on his way out, regardless of how competitive the Rockies could have come with an offer.  Besides, at the expected future rate Jennings is to receive, are the Rockies worse off with Hirsh and Buchholz on the staff?  It stands to reason.

Second, the late trading date may soften the blow of fan backlash, as ticket renewal and sales had already started for the upcoming season.  If the Rockies make the deal early, and keep the savings for later use (to attempt resignings of Cook, Atkins, etc.), it would have sent the message that the Rockies are dumping salaray without pouring any back in, early enough to put a dent in sales.  While it may still have an affect, the timing should slow it.

Rosy also seems overly pessimistic about the players heading the Rockies way, but seems fairly convinced that Helton will bounce back.  Based on recent trends, should we see Helton returning to form a greater chance than Lowell keeping up his production?  Even if Helton has a bounce back, he'll lose the Coors boost (yes, it is starting to show more as his power declines, his road numbers for 2006: .266/.360/.421) possibly preventing a major return to superstar numbers.  I'm not a huge Lowell fan, but again, the difference between his production last year and Helton's was only a game and a half.

I think Ken also overestimates the fan backlash.  As Charlie Steiner stated on MLB radio today, 20,000 fans has been considered a good day for turnout.  In that same interview, Troy Renck added that the Rockies' FO's ultimate response to fan concerns will be to just win and prove that the future might be better off without Todd.  It wasn't like Todd the player was a problem, but Todd the salary is, as the Rockies will not be able to sustain any success with him accounting for a third of the payroll for the next five years, and Renck spoke as if this was a fact to the Rockies' brass (one I agree with).  The FO knows it's already in hot water, but they also know they haven't been a winner in a long time, and that winning, not an aging superstar, is what will bring the fans back.  If the Rockies have a winning season without Helton, how many here can honestly say they'll be spiteful?

Lastly, Rosy makes the bold, but incorrect claim that the Rockies trading Helton is a sign they think he is finished.  Close but not quite.  A Rockies trade now only signals that they fear that if he is in fact finished, he will become untradeable.  It's all about risk assumption, and the Rockies obviously have weighed such risks and feel that they can't take that kind of chance if it can be avoided reasonably.  Could he bounce back?  Sure, but if he doesn't (he's been shedding roughly 100 points of OBP a year the ;ast two years), the Rockies will not be able to move him, they'll lose all their arbitration-approaching talent, and be stuck in a rut that could only improve with more a lucrative ownership.

If they can't get a deal they're satisfied with, the risk will be minimized to a degree (since no plausible alternative is available).  This is why they're holding out for better young talent.  Avoiding a reasonable offer, however, could prove to be fatal to the sustainability of the current growth.

Now, there's some interest in Lowell around the league especially by the Padres.  What if O'Dowd manages to spin Lowell off to them while eating $4 million and taking low-end prospects in exchange?

If he is going to screw the franchise and the fans (which doesn't really seem to be in his best interest) then there is nothing that can stop him.  This trade is hardly the only means he has of doing it.

This potential trade has to be looked in accordance with Monfort acting in good faith (the other option makes any speculation pointless anyways).

A 'good' owner in Colorado (one who wasn't a cheapskate but wasn't willing to bleed huge amounts of money out of pocket either) would still have significant motivation to be free of Helton's contract.

Also, the idea of competing in 2007 was pretty far-fetched even before the Jennings trade so I really don't see a fear of not 'competing' in 2007 as being avoidable in the first place.