Addition by null; Sides taken on Koshansky; and a New York Idiot.

by Rox Girl on Feb 7, 2007 8:25 AM MST in Rockpile

All that and more, yes, it will be a power packed Wednesday.

First, the good news. By not signing Dan Kolb, according to Jeff Bridich via the Denver Post's Troy Renck, more opportunities will be given this season to Ramon Ramirez and Manny Corpas. In addition, apparently Manny showed up early to camp to get some extra workouts in. Already Corpas' numbers seem to indicate he's the heir apparent to Brian Fuentes as closer if/when Brian leaves town, but now it looks like he has the determination to match.

Moving on, the second thing I wanted to point out is the continued void in center field for the Marlins, which brought up two thoughts, the first being why they haven't gone after Choo Freeman now that he's.., er.., free, and the second being why shouldn't they go after Cory Sullivan? I know Cory's no Alex Rios, and he certainly won't equate to one of Tampa's guys, but he's also a clear upgrade over what they have and he'd come cheaper, too. Anyway, I doubt anything will happen, but he seems to fit as a stop-gap for Florida once we're sure Jeff Salazar, Ryan Spillborghs and Willy T have things covered over here.

Chris Constancio of FirstInning.com and the Hardball Times yesterday came out with an article which places Joe Koshansky on a level with divisional peers Adrian Gonzalez and James Loney, and ahead of the D-backs' Conor Jackson and Chris Carter. Nate Silver, and his PECOTA projections at Baseball Prospectus beg to differ. In an article for paid subscribers, his projections peg Koshansky as barely above marginal value and dead last amongst his peers. I'm assuming if you're reading this blog, I know which ranking you prefer. The disparity seems to be following a theme this offseason, Keith Law puts on the hate, BA puts on the love, Constancio likes him, BP would rather date someone else. Anyway, Koshansky really doesn't have anything left to prove in the minors, as Colorado Springs stats wouldn't quiet the doubters no matter how phenomenal they were.

Finally, I've only become aware of this today, so if it's old news to the rest of you, then I apologize, but apparently back in September, the San Diego Union-Tribune printed this:

The Padres will not be playing host to the Yankees for three games at Petco Park next June as originally announced.

Evidently, another NL West team complained about the Yankees visiting San Diego in each of the first two pairings of NL West and AL East teams in interleague play.

Instead of the Yankees, the Boston Red Sox will come to San Diego. The Red Sox will be at Petco from June 22-24, following the Baltimore Orioles (June 19-21). On the original tentative schedule, announced last week, the Yankees were to be at Petco from June 19-21 with the Orioles following. The Yankees will play the Rockies rather than the Padres.

Alright from which Newsday columnist Ken Davidoff came up with this:

The Yankees were supposed to visit San Diego this season, but when Colorado management begged for the Yankees to come in and boost attendance, baseball relented and switched the schedule, as first reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune. This is when the Yankees have every right to cry hypocrisy: Opposing teams don't want them spending so much on talent - until the chance arises to have them in their ballpark ...

I'm thinking Davidoff was looking forward to the mai tais on the beach paid for with the corporate card when he learned of the schedule switch to come up with something so inane at such a strange point in time.

Let's just go over the points where this is bad journalism quickly as the post is already pretty long.

The original report never said it was the Rockies who complained. Yeah, yeah, it could probably be assumed that it was the Rockies given the results, but unless Davidoff has concrete evidence of that, he probably should keep his trap shut blaming them.
Along those lines, when have the Rockies complained about the Yankees' spending so much on talent? As you might recall, the Rockies themselves have been villified and are now under a heavy financial obligation due to the huge contracts they've given out.
Alright, now finally, look at the original report again. Does it say that the unnamed NL West team "begged" the Yankees to visit? Again, Davidoff seems to be coming up with stuff out of his hindquarters here. If baseball made the switch, then what do the Yankees have to do with it? Please. Whatever. The Yankees have "every right" to feel good about themselves for being such a favorable draw, but beyond that, let's just stick to the rights we all enjoy and not play this ignorant class hypocrisy card.

Okay, rant over. Thanks to Yanksblog.com for the tip.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Kind of off the point

But has anyone heard if we're working out Dustin Hermanson? I know he's coming off an injury and everything, but he might not make a bad arm for the pen. Maybe a 7th inning guy or something.

by MattTheRock on Feb 7, 2007 10:45 AM MST reply actions

Hermanson

Looks like he is throwing for scouts sometime this week. The Yankees are reviewing his medical files in preparation to give him an offer. The Orioles, A's and Giants are also interested. The Marlins, Rays, Reds and Phils also monitoring him. That's from Monday. Don't know if anything has happened since.

by lgh77 on Feb 7, 2007 11:05 AM MST up reply actions

ESPN Rockies News

ESPN had a little blurb today about Carl Pivano and whether or not he would be traded. It mentioned that the Rocks offered to cover $5M of the $20M left on his contract, but that the Yanks were hoping to get somebody to cover $7-8M. I can only assume there are two years left on the contract.

Seems like even if we had to step up to $7M it might be worth it if we don't have to give up anybody worth while. $3.5M/yr with a limited committment in this pitching market seems like a bargain for someone that could possibly be good.

Thoughts?

by lcssmu on Feb 7, 2007 11:41 AM MST reply actions

ugg

I'm not a big Carl Pavano fan. He's had one good year (04). That's it. IF he's healthy AND in shape (and those are 2 big if's given Pavano's career) then he's better then Rodrigo Lopez or Josh Fogg and BK.

But not by much. And not for $3mil per year...which is a bargin in this market. Even for an over rated pitcher like Pavano.

by Redhawk on Feb 7, 2007 11:55 AM MST up reply actions

Pavano vs. Lopez

I agree with your assertion of him being overrated, but you bring up an interesting question of whether Carl Pavano is really a better alternative to Rodrigo Lopez. You mention CP's one good season, 2004 which also happened to be Rodrigo Lopez's last good season (137 ERA+ vs. 133 ERA+). Lopez also had a solid 2002, whereas Pavano's only other glimmer of hope was all the way back in 2000 for only 97 innings.

I think their histories would be about equal without Pavano's injury history, and given that, I like who we have a little better. Given the potential cost involved, ($4 million compared to $7 milllion) I like Lopez a lot better. If the Yankees swallowed up more of his salary, Pavano would be worth a flier as insurance for Brian Lawrence not panning out, but that's about it.

by Rox Girl on Feb 7, 2007 12:33 PM MST up reply actions

If only for development time...

Might not be a bad idea if the thought is to let our young guns develop a bit more. It might not be a bad idea for to take the Twins model on this, in moving our young guns into the bullpen for some seasoning before we unleash them as starters.

Of course, this is assuming that Pavano's totally healed- and that's a huge if at this point. I don't want to pay 5 mil to someone who's damaged goods, especially when we're working with the payroll we have. It's probably a more attractive option for the Cardinals or something.

by MattTheRock on Feb 7, 2007 1:01 PM MST up reply actions

I don't get it

We already have 8 starting pitchers on the 40-man roster with 2 more non-roster invitees. Why on earth are we looking at Pavano? Do they want to put him in the bullpen for help there? Is O'Dowd trying to hoard all of the starting pitchers available? I don't get it.

by lgh77 on Feb 7, 2007 11:46 PM MST up reply actions

I think this is just resurrecting an old rumor

We had expressed interest in Pavano early in the offseason before we got Lopez, Lawrence, Hirsh, Buchholz and Rivera, so I'm kind of doubtful the offer still stands.

by Rox Girl on Feb 8, 2007 6:30 AM MST up reply actions

American Legends

I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.

Thanks,
Mark

www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

by JMEnglish on Feb 7, 2007 5:44 PM MST reply actions

You know...

If Monfort would put a decent team on the field, fans would show up even if we weren't playing the Yankees.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Feb 7, 2007 7:39 PM MST reply actions

I don't know about this

I think fans would show up if Monfort put a familiar team on the field, ie, a lot of high priced veterans that they've read about in the sports pages, and that decency would be an implied after effect. I was trying to point out the other day that a younger, anonymous decent team (what we've already got mostly in place) won't solve the Rockies' attendance woes without effective marketing to go along with it. I'm not sold on the "win and they will come" theory, as the media pundits who seem to be trumpeting it the loudest seem the most clueless when it comes to talent evaluation.

Anybody, given the money, could do what the Cubs front office did this season and just spend indiscriminately on everybody and everything, but to actually build a quality self-feeding farm system that leads to a long, affordable winning run is a more impressive feat, but also less likely to register with the common fan until a season or two into the peak.

by Rox Girl on Feb 8, 2007 6:43 AM MST up reply actions

That's what I mean

Not the part about throwing money at veterans, but if the team were winning, people would show up just to watch the Rockies.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Feb 8, 2007 8:18 AM MST up reply actions

Agreed

Exactly. I don't think the general fan cares if it's a team of All Star Veterans or fresh faced kids who need tips on how to shave. If the Rockies were winning, you'd have far more people at the park.

I know that's the case with me. I want to purchase a 25 game package this year, but I find myself asking "In how many of these series/games will they be competitive?" I certainly don't expect 100 wins from this team, but if we're talking more of the same, including a month long collapse, I just don't know if I want to buy more than one or two games.

BTW- great bog! Very informative and fun to read.

by comedian on Feb 8, 2007 10:47 AM MST up reply actions

Thanks for the compliments

Your second paragraph gets to exactly what I was referring to. Fans' confidence or expectations in winning fuels their ticket purchases, and they won't go out on a limb for a team full of young players until after they've got some sort of sense that those players are any good. Some fans will hop on quicker than others due to the unfamiliarity and waiting out to see if things are "for real" or not, and the net result will be a slower surge in attendance for a young team of unknowns than if the same winning formula was created by players that they've already heard of.

I think this is part of the reason why Minnesota and Oakland have such a hard time keeping attendance up despite running winning programs, that even as of last season there was enough uncertainty (particularly when the Twins started so miserably) that fans were hesitant to commit.

As a Rockies blogger, I love it that the team's fans are so generally well informed, but as a Rockies fan who wants the team to be able to afford to keep its best players, I sometimes think it might be better if we had more of the blindly devoted variety (like the Cubs) that never really realize how bad things are, or at least not enough to stop attending games.

by Rox Girl on Feb 8, 2007 11:06 AM MST up reply actions