Second Base 2008: Calling back Kaz-Mat?

by Rox Girl on Mar 19, 2007 11:05 AM MDT in Rockpile

The moment I read the Ken Rosenthal column that malakian linked to last night, I figured that a certain faction of Rockies fans would key in on one particular phrase:

Second baseman Kaz Matsui, a free agent after this season, will move out of the Rockies' price range if he revives this season. Thus, even if Barmes opens the season in Triple A, he might be the favorite to be the team's regular at second in 2008.

Not even a qualifier, a "likely" or "probably" or something. Nope, he just goes out and says that Matsui will move out of the Rockies' price range. Just for kicks, here are the 2007 salaries (from Cot's Baseball Contracts) of the five projected NL West 2nd Basemen:

Arizona: Orlando Hudson, $3.9 million
Colorado: Kaz Matsui, $1.5 million (plus $950,000 in incentives)
Los Angeles: Jeff Kent, $11.5 million
San Diego: Marcus Giles, $3.25 million
San Francisco: Ray Durham, $7 million

So right now, even if Matsui makes all his incentive bonuses, the Rockies are the most frugal club in the division at second base by around $800,000. Next season, Arizona figures to be the lowest on the salary scale, with Alberto Callaspo making near the league minimum. Los Angeles could also be in that minimum salary category if they choose to use Blake DeWitt, but when was the last time the Dodgers did something for cheap that they could overpay by millions for? Anyway, let's look at a couple of projections:

Callaspo: .283/.332/.401/1.90
Hudson: .273/.333/.399/3.01
Matsui: .259/.307/.336/0.70
Barmes: .267/.305/.406/4.00
Carroll: .280/.345/.342/1.35
Quintanilla: .261/.312/.369/2.49
Herrera: .262/.317/.355/
DeWitt: .228/.282/.348/1.21
Kent: .273/.362/.484/
Giles: .254/.329/.360/2.41
Durham: .276/.348/.431/3.10

So what is that? That, my friends, is the power of the Hardball Times 2007 Preview.., with a little help from a BP subscription. Anyway most of the above projections are from the THT preview for the 2008 season. The only exceptions are for Kent and Herrera, where there was no projection in the THT book, so I went by the good old standby, PECOTA.

At any rate, the first three numbers are your standard AVG/OBP/SLG, but the last one is the projected wins above replacement if the player has a breakout year (75 percentile) in 2008. That four wins is why the Rockies are wanting to keep Barmes, and why I might change my mind about wanting to trade him. That's projected at shortstop, where he would have more value defensively, but you can probably figure his value at second in the event of a breakout would still be high enough to surpass that of all but Hudson, Durham and Kent.

I included Quintanilla and Herrera, however, to show that Barmes isn't the only possible plus second baseman on hand. Matsui, on the other hand, could be in serious jeopardy of staying in stateside baseball if he doesn't have a rebound season, and even then is in a declining arc that makes a big contract for 2008 a bad gamble to take given the other talent we'd have on hand. If any of the three step up for 2008 (and chances are at least one will) we'll be competitive with our divisional peers and won't have to pay millions to do so.

So while I sincerely hope Rosenthal was wrong about us not being able to afford renewing Matsui, I'm certainly not advocating that we go ahead and extend him, even if he does exceed projections.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What...No Jayson Nix prediction?

;)

by sg8335aa on Mar 19, 2007 12:39 PM MDT reply actions

Oops, did I leave Nix out?

For the sake of completion, here's the projection should Nix break out in 2008.

by Rox Girl on Mar 19, 2007 12:46 PM MDT up reply actions

I always love it

how they presume to "know" what the Rockies' price range is. Like they've talked to the Monforts and they said "hey, if Kaz hits 40 homers this year and suddenly he's going for $10 million, we're not going to pay him."

The Coors Effect... thinking about changing the name to The Humidor Effect.

by Rox Fan in TN on Mar 19, 2007 2:31 PM MDT reply actions

Right,

Especially since all we hear from the Monforts is that payroll will rise. If KazMat has a great year, and his annual salary goes up into the 3 mil range, is there one person here who believes that the Monforts could find a little extra scratch for him?

by MattTheRock on Mar 19, 2007 3:07 PM MDT up reply actions

Edit...

I mean could NOT find the scratch...

by MattTheRock on Mar 19, 2007 3:08 PM MDT up reply actions

I think

it will be very interesting to see how much the Rockies attendance rebounds this year. With the Yankees coming in, and the good possibility of being in contention, there's a good chance of a significant attendance spike this year. Could make for an interesting off season next year.

But heck, let's get this season started first. Seems like Spring Training is taking forever. Bring on Opening Day!

by jlikesrockies on Mar 19, 2007 3:18 PM MDT up reply actions

Regarding Barmes

if that was the stat-line he would put up without removing park factors, I don't consider that enough of an upgrade to warrant keeping if we get a solid offer or B level guy at a position of need, or a player of intruige. Really, I don't see Barmes' slugging almost 140 points above his average on a consistent basis, a number he barely reached in his rookie season. Without any plate patience it will be even more difficult for Barmes to have that type of breakout without extreme luck in BABIP, and placing a high price tag on a player that needs luck to be better than replacement level sounds foolish (but not out of the expected realm of this FO).

I'm not saying we should ship him out at once, but this team needs quite a bit of breaks to win the division, and have few safety nets for this season, so what's the difference if we lose one more? If Florida Kansas City or Chicago dangles a solid non-40 B level player, it would be worth looking into.

by David OhNo on Mar 19, 2007 3:17 PM MDT reply actions

I'm just feeding the hype...

Given that Quintanilla and Herrera have remarkably similar projections to Barmes for their baseline, what you say makes plenty of sense. We're not going to be losing much upside by giving Clint up. The question is how much upside we can get back in return. The other issue is who would be better served filling his roster slot.

The main points I actually took from the Rosenthal piece:

Clint Barmes is being sought by other teams.
O'Dowd is holding out in a similar fashion to what he did with Jennings. It's the Boras school of negotiation: Give an astronomical asking price then shut up and wait. Eventually the other side(s) will either cave, up their offer to some middle point, or remain firm.
I don't believe that Clint's actually off the market, but if the offers for him are too weak, than he could be pulled from it completely. O'Dowd gives the 2008 bid for second as plausible leverage for the Rockies.

In the end, I think a trade happens, but not necessarily by the end of Spring Training. Given the interest cited, I think our initial assessments of what we could get for Clint need to be raised a bit.

by Rox Girl on Mar 19, 2007 3:41 PM MDT up reply actions

Position of need...

Suppose a decent midlevel pitcher would be best. Can't say that I'm concerned at the least about any of our positional depth.

by MattTheRock on Mar 19, 2007 5:30 PM MDT up reply actions

I was thinking more along the lines of

positional needs in the organization as well. For the 40 man, it would be a pitcher, namely a lefty reliever if possible, but for the organization, we could use more raw/upside corner outfielders.

by David OhNo on Mar 19, 2007 5:40 PM MDT up reply actions