Morning Stuff:

by Rox Girl on Feb 1, 2007 7:44 AM MST in Rockpile Comment 9 comments

Troy Renck at the Denver Post starts the inevitable media campaign to prep Rockies fans for the departure of Matt Holliday, while Dave Krieger at the Rocky Mountain News continues to astound me with his recent transition from ill-informed wingnut to an actually semi-enlightened writer when it comes to the Rockies. His latest piece points out that not every legacy needs crowned by a championship in professional sports (in reference to Helton). Still, it would be nice if Todd's did end in a fairy tale in Denver. I mean, I wouldn't complain.

Anyway, I think I've made my opinion on Holliday known: that I think he's more replaceable than some other parts on the team, and should be used in trade to get the highest possible return before he hits free agency. Brian Fuentes and Aaron Cook are a little trickier, as the development of pitching prospects is a less sure thing. 2007 should tell us more, particularly if Greg Reynolds and Franklin Morales transition seamlessly to AA, and Juan Morillo and Taylor Buchholz move easily into the bullpen, both Cook and Fuentes could be just as expendable.

brad Hawpe is just as expendable as Holliday, but likely less valuable in trade or the free agent market, although his left handed bat might make him more attractive to other teams than I think he should be. And then we have Garrett Atkins, who might be the only player of the initial Gen-R wave that's worth signing to an extension into his free agency period. Up in the Rockies just did a preview for Garrett, and if he does come out with another all-star type season, than I think we should certainly entertain the idea.

Speaking of that first wave of Gen-R, Jack Etkin at the RMN says that we shouldn't count Clint Barmes as on the outs just yet. Apparently he's finally decided to sit down and actually try and correct his "out front" approach to his swing last season that led to the miserable offensive output. I know he wasn't nearly the player he's capable of being last year, but I also know he isn't nearly the player Troy Tulowitzki's capable of being, so another season of Barmes at starter still seems doubtful to me. It would be nice if Clint's bat is back, however, as that will boost his value in the trade market.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Holliday

Every time he speaks about the team, you can sense in his language an underlying spite for Monfort. Holliday loves the Rockies, and I think it bugs him that the owner is so clueless and financially unequipped. And Rox Girl, there's no way I can compete with your knowledge and statistics, so I defer to you on the subject, but I just don't think .330 hitters with 40+ home-run capability grow on trees, so losing him worries me some.

As for Hawpe, I have this gut feeling that even though he's always been the third wheel behind Holliday and Atkins, he could come out of nowhere this year and explode on to the scene. With his long, loopy swing it stand to reason that he'd be a late-bloomer, and he's clearly an impact player in the field. Kind of like Morneau in Minnesota, I believe Hawpe has something special in him that may just be waiting to come out, when everyone else was busy looking longingly at other young guys on the team (Mauer/Cuddyer in Minnesota, Holliday/Atkins in Colorado).

by Good Ol Larry on Feb 1, 2007 9:10 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Holliday and Hawpe

I get the same feeling when I read Holliday's statements. Funny, I thought I was just seeing something that wasn't there. But you see it too.
I'm worried about loosing Holliday too. As I look around the league his numbers from LF are so much better then the field. And unless the Rockies raise their payroll, he's gone.

Hawpe is a more concern for me. I love him in the field. But his total lack of production with runners in scoring position was very troubling. I hope it's just a weird annomoly, and like Morneau he will bloom this year.

by Redhawk on Feb 1, 2007 9:19 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD HEAR ANYONE.......

say they loved Hawpe in the field. He's a 1st first baseman forced to play a position that he appears to be lost in. This being said, I think he has proven to be a solid contributor over the course of a full season.

by 86 wins in 07 on Feb 1, 2007 10:49 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes but...

...Holliday makes Hawpe look like Willie Mays in the OF. I hate to make a reference like this, but Holliday reminds me of the old days with Dante in LF. Hits well at home, not on the road, and can't play LF worth beans.

by cofan17 on Feb 1, 2007 11:20 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

His arm...

I love his arm in right. Granted he doesn't always take the best routes in getting to the ball, but having that laser in right is a serious deterrent, real or imagined.

by MattTheRock on Feb 1, 2007 10:57 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

My main concern with Holliday

Has always been his extreme home/road splits. Particularly bothersome is the fact that in every NL West stadium besides Coors Field, he has an OPS less than .700, except for AT&T where he "smashes" the ball out at a rate of .723. This is about equal to putting another Clint Barmes in our clean-up spot whenever we go on the road within the division.

My second concern is the way he seems to stop playing as hard after the sixth or seventh inning, a perception that also shows up in actual numbers according to his splits. His drop-off in production with RISP last season was worse than Hawpe's, but that stat is usually meaningless, particularly with younger players. I don't think replacing his production will be easy, but I also don't think he'll necessarily be worthy of whatever free agent contract he receives.

by Rox Girl on Feb 1, 2007 10:14 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

that is somewhat unfair...

to Holliday. Last year, he was passable on the road--although his split was still extreme. I also wonder if other teams see his splits and will worry about making a major investment (either monetary or through trade) in him. Is there any indication that the Rockies would be happy with what they could get in return for him.

by DenverBears on Feb 1, 2007 10:29 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

St. Louis would probably pay a mint for him

Considering how well he does against the Cardinals.

More seriously, because he did improve a bit on the road as you say last season, we should be able to trade him for a pretty valuable package of prospects at some point, probably as soon as next offseason should Ian Stewart prove ready to contribute and Jeff Baker show that last season's production wasn't a fluke. I think trading Holliday depends a lot on Todd Helton's season. If Todd bounces back in 2007 with a big year, the Rockies should be more successful in finding a trade partner willing to take on his remaining salary. If that's the case, we keep Holliday into 2008, otherwise, I'd look for him and Fuentes to be dealt next offseason.

by Rox Girl on Feb 1, 2007 11:01 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

My thought

I'd like to keep Holliday and Atkins around. However, if the Twins are the example we're trying to follow, their model is to let the guys who are replaceable around while keeping the guys who they absolutely have to have (such as Johan Santana.)

If Atkins leaves, we've got Stewart. If Holliday leaves, we've got... well, we've got a ton of corner OF prospects.

Is having Atkins at third that much better than having Stewart at third? Or Holliday, Taveras, and Hawpe in the outfield, as opposed to Smith, Fowler, and Baker? I would argue that around 2009, having Stewart, Smith, Fowler, and Baker (or somebody else) in the lineup could be better.

I've got a bad habit of picking losers... Rockies, Vanderbilt, Grizzlies...

by Rox Fan in TN on Feb 1, 2007 1:07 PM MST reply actions 0 recs