Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Amateur Mathematics Of Linsanity

Wednesday Morning Rockpile:

Part of the trouble with pre-season predictions in a sport that unfolds over six months and 162 games (plus more if you're lucky) is that what you know about teams right now in March could change suddenly and dramatically alter how the rest of the year unfolds. So when Clint Hurdle, in reference particularly to Brian Lawrence and Ubaldo Jimenez says:

"We could be in a position that whatever five (starters) we break with in spring training might not be the five we have in the middle of the season,"

He's just saying a basic modern baseball truth that can be applied to all teams, and yet so often projections for the season ignore this.

Taking depth into account is a difficult task, and it's understandable why many writers would choose to ignore it. Especially lazy, nationally syndicated columnists who make their living off of skeptical antagonism and don't do enough homework to even understand who's likely to break camp in a rotation. Even those that do look at it can hardly be expected to look at every variable for every team and come up with a completely accurate projection. It's just not going to happen, so if you're smart, you try and settle for close enough.

Why I bring this up is that I was going over Dayn Perry's 10 teams who could surprise list, and I thought again about how wrong some pretty smart people are about the Diamondbacks' chances in the NL West this season. It's not just Perry, but I've seen it all over the internet. Now, some would disagree, according to Joe Posnanski, the Rockies are the "trendy" pick, so maybe he's seeing some print media I'm not, but that's certainly not the case on the net.

I mean, don't get me wrong, in future seasons the Diamondbacks on offense will be a loaded and talented team for many years, but they just don't have the same level of talent on the pitching side of the ball as Colorado, and the Rockies are close enough in the hitting component to make them the Snakes' equal overall. The reverse is true for this season, where the Rox will have a distinct advantage on offense and the pitching will be close enough to put us on a level playing field. I wasn't sure of this before Spring began, given the overhauls both teams gave their rotations in the offseason, but I am now. We obviously lose quite a bit at #1, but where we will pick up some serious ground is slots #4-#6, mostly thanks to Jimenez:

Let me spell this out clearly, these are the weighted mean innings pitched projections for Arizona's presumable preferred starting five according to Baseball Prospectus' PECOTA:

Brandon Webb 226.7 IP
Randy Johnson 112.3 IP
Doug Davis 180.3 IP
Livan Hernandez 179 IP
Enrique Gonzalez 157.7 IP

Total: 856 innings. However, that's also assuming a level of quality performance from Hernandez and Davis that neither appear ready to achieve in 2007. Davis still has the same control problems that have been worsening the last three seasons, and Hernandez' good fortune in BABIP that he had when he initially came to Arizona midseason last year seems to have gone by the wayside. Honestly, I think it would be a safe assumption to lop off a good twenty to twenty-five innings each given how little they've shown that they've improved on their recent pasts this Spring.

Here's more: Cy Young winner Webb is assumed by this projection to have 33 starts, meaning no misses whatsoever averaging nearly seven innings each, and yet he missed his last turn in the Springtime rotation due to neck stiffness. At this point it's questionable whether he'll be ready to pitch at all Opening Day vs. the Rockies, and even if he is ready, how strong will he be when he's only pitched three innings of any game so far this Spring? My colleague at the AZ Snakepit has noticed these trends as well, and I can tell you that despite the Diamondbacks' nifty exhibition record that there is trouble in that section of Tucson.

The upshoot is that I anticipate a lot more slack than most NL teams to have to be picked up by Arizona's supporting cast of spot starters, and unlike Jeff Sackmann, I am not particularly impressed that the bunch will be particularly effective in this role. Micah Owings, though he'll be a decent bottom of the rotation starter, is a tad overrated and has been using middling stuff to feast on weaker minor league hitters. In the Majors -particularly his rookie year- he won't be nearly as successful. Nippert and the rest -with the possible exception of Eveland- also fall into this category of good command of weaker than wanted pitches. Dana's trickier, as he seems to have the pitches, but lacks command and leaves far too much up in the strike zone. None of these pitchers will have the kind of impact Jimenez and Lawrence will with the Rockies later this season.

I'm still somewhat leary of our chances of passing the Padres and Dodgers until I see more of them, but as of right now, I'm predicting at least a third place finish in the NL West for the Rockies this season.

Quickly, because I took so long up top:

Rox shortstop battle not decided. Really? Okay, are you seriously arguing that Barmes is better after watching Tulo jack that screaming line drive double to dead center field yesterday? I didn't think so. Just admit what's obvious like the rest of us, so we can start hyping the kid and sell some tickets.

Chris Iannetta = Very Good. See this is what we need to see more of.

I think that's it except for some more BK trade whispers here and there. We'll keep monitoring that situation as well.

Comment 26 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

3rd Place?
No matter what the Rockies' final record is this year, if they finish in 3rd place, the season will be considered a smashing success.  

This is the 15th season of Rockies baseball, and in 13 of 14 previous seasons, our team has finished either next to last place, or in last place.  Only once have we done better, in 1995.  For a perennial 4th or 5th place team to finish 3rd would be a breakthrough season.

I suppose it's possible, given Arizona's downside and the Giants' age.  But, I would consider it quite unlikely that we finish ahead of either San Diego or Los Angeles.  

We do have better starting pitching depth than some teams right now, but I think the bullpen has vulnerabilities.  I expect the Rockies to be, once again, a 4th place team (with the Giants most likely finishing last).

by Roxpert on Mar 21, 2007 9:05 AM MDT reply actions  

I've said it before, I'll say it again
I think the Rockies will finish near .500, which should be good for 2nd place in the NL West.  But close to the other runner up, so a virtual tie, (a game or two difference) could put us in 3rd.

Giants: Name one position player better then their counterpart on the Rockies?  Come on..name one..

Arizona: Nice young talent.  They are the Rockies from a couple of years ago.  Some of those can't misses will miss, and it will take time to shake out and develop.  As Rox Girl points out, their starters aren't all that.  Neither is their Bull pen

Padres: Name their hitting star.  Adrian Gonzalez! who would be 4th best on the Rockies.  Yes very nice rotation.  Peavy and Young are good.  Maddox and Wells are about 100, and I don't expect either to finish the season.  

Dodgers: I like their line up, through they have no Middle power.  Kent, Louis Gonzalaz, and Nomar are ageing and very injury prone.  That leaves Andre Either as their big power guy.  Their rotation looks dominate however...1st place, but not a run away first.

The Rockies: Why does past performances automaticlly mean Colorado will do what they did in the past? That makes no sense.  It seems so many people both national & Local Media, and local and national fans just dissmiss the Rockies like they're the equivalant of the Baylor Unv. Bears football team.  

The Rockies have nice young players, who are improving (see last few years for Aikens, Holliday, Willie T), Helton who is healthy this spring, and still the active leader in batting average over the last 5 years.  With nice young additions at SS and Catcher.  Our starting pitching looks shaky, but Jimenez, Lawerence are nice additions and Reynolds and Morrillo, and Morales look to be studs that are REAL close.  Our bull pen looks to be about averge in the Majors, and comparable to many teams.

Why can't the Rockies finish 3rd? or even 2nd?  Because they haven't? that's not an answer. That dissmisses any type of consideration of the current players on the Rockies today, and simply saying that the past players couldn't do it, so this group can't either.   They aren't last years team or 2 years ago, or 7 yeas ago.  Neither are any other team in the majors, personnel changes.

Lets play it out on the field....I like my side over the nay sayers, and the odds makers.  

Go Rockies!

by Redhawk on Mar 21, 2007 9:53 AM MDT reply actions  

Stupid, stupid, stupid
12. Troy Tulowitzki vs. Clint Barmes
Tulowitzki has outperformed Barmes this spring, though he probably isn't as good a defensive player. Barmes' name has been mentioned in trade rumors, as well. Fortunately, Tulowitzki's wrist wasn't broken when he was hit last week. He gets the nod.

Huh?  Barmes is a better defender than Tulo?  Really?

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Mar 21, 2007 10:06 AM MDT reply actions  

bernie lincicome
is such a cynical, downright mean person.

who wants to wake up in the morning, with the sun shining and their whole day in front of them, and start their day by reading that shit?

plus he is just usually wrong.

by Good Ol Larry on Mar 21, 2007 10:08 AM MDT reply actions  

Let's get Mikey to try it....
He Hates EVERYTHING!  I don't get how Bernie has a job either.  He hates everything. I've never seen a positive (hell, even a neutral) column by him. He seems a miserable man, with a grey cloud over him all the time. By the Way, He lives in Chicago too..why is he in a Denver paper?  

It's a beautiful chamber of commerce day in Denver...too bad Lincicome won't see it. And wouldn't appreciate it if he did.

by Redhawk on Mar 21, 2007 10:30 AM MDT up reply actions  

Lincicome lives in Evergreen
Everything else you say about him is true.

by Rox Girl on Mar 21, 2007 3:01 PM MDT up reply actions  

Bernie Lincicome.....
....maybe a jackass but he is not necessarily wrong. The loss of JJ was a biggie and I feel that this board in particular has been ignoring the elephant in the room.....

JJ was the ace, opening day starter, rock, leader, old man and consummate pro on our pitching staff. he will be none of those things to the Astros but to us he was as close as we had to "The Man"! - Put Aaron Cooks name next to any name at the top of the rotation in the NL west and you have to sigh...

We have so many great prospects but all are unproven  and our number 4 and 5 spots are downright scary.

The bats are going to blast this season but if you are not going to say a little prayer and cross your fingers every time a Rockies starter takes the hill you are simply in denial. I have been watching Tucson. I see a glint of the "eye of the Tiger" in one set of eyes and it is Jeff Francis. No others! - RoxGirl can weigh and crunch numbers until the cows come home but I am scared.

I think the of quoted Gertrude Stein comment concerning Oakland California is apt for the Rockies starters... "There is no there, there".

-Ricky Rockie

by Rickie Rockie on Mar 21, 2007 10:41 AM MDT reply actions  

You can't spell ace without A.C.
Just kidding.

Cook is no number one, but neither was JJ. He was the Rockies' losingest pitcher as well as their winningest and never exhibited the kind of dominance you would expect from a top of the rotation guy. U-ball will be that kind of guy, and if the leaps and bounds he has made this last year are any indication, he will be that guy relatively soon. Franklin Morales is on his way.

Losing Jennings was tough, but the whole elephant in the room bit only works if Jason Hirsh isn't as good as Jennings was. Jason Hirsh is at least a .500 pitcher, which is exactly what Jennings gave us over his career.

I think the real elephant in the room for the Rockies this season is their reliance on Rodrigo Lopez. We didn't give up much to get him, but it's looking more and more to be a case of "you get what you pay for" in that trade at least. I'm still hoping for some sort of turnaround to show that's not the case, but I've not seen any indication of it yet. I'll just repeat that I think where the Rockies will be most improved in the rotation this season is in their #4-#6 slots which were absolutely horrid last year. I think the improvements on the other side (the offense scoring a significant chunk of runs more) will mask some of the Lopez deficiency, and that's where I believe we'll land in third place.

by Rox Girl on Mar 21, 2007 11:06 AM MDT up reply actions  

this makes little sense, if any
i dont even know where to start.  is this bernie himself posting under a pseduonym?  no offense to you, ricky, but ive got to take you to task for some of the stuff you just said.  it's too heinous to ignore.

i have to start here because its a massively pointless blanket statement:  "we have so many great prospects, but all are unproven."  isn't being unproven the definition of a prospect?  show me a team with proven prospects.  its an oxymoron.  and doesn't every single mlb team have literally hundreds of prospects at any one time?  as for the major league club, the rockies really only have 3 "unproven prospects" looking to make a big impact- tulo, ianetta, and hirsh.  thats about the same number as any team not called the yankees or red sox has at the beginning of any one season.  it might be unusual for us to have 2 of them at key defensive positions, but its hardly a huge red flag.  and all 3 of ours arent even necessarily "unproven" because theyve spent time at the big league level and been very passable, even good at times.  the rest of our starting lineup and rotation is filled with guys that have plenty of major league experience.  

"i see a glint of the 'eye of the tiger' in one set of eyes, and that is jeff francis."  wow.  this worries you, even if it is true?  im pretty sure having the "eye of the tiger" means little to the success of the team compared to "being good at baseball".  even if i go out on a limb and grant you that having this mystical "eye" is important to the team, how exactly are you qualifying/quantifying it?  let me guess, you must be a big david eckstein/darin erstad fan.  the kind of fan who doesnt care about who puts up numbers, but would rather talk about "who wants it more" and "who grinds out ballgames".  ill take people that can actually put up numbers, thanks.  not that i need to defend her, she can speak for herself, but rox girl's number crunching is the kind of thing that in my opinion helps the formulation of very solid opinions and predictions.  as opposed to the generic determination whether or not someone has the eye of the tiger.

third, why the aaron cook hate?  his career ERA: 4.58 (and of course, this is all as a rockie just like jennings).  jennings' career ERA: 4.74.  hmmmmmm.  seems like a wash, at worst, to me.  just because jennings was designated our "ace" the past couple seasons (which was probably more a function of experience than ability given the stats him, cook, and francis have put up the past 2 years) doesnt mean his shoes are unfillable.  cook has an absolultely dominant sinker tailor made for coors.  and keep in mind last year was his first full big league season so he probably wore down near the end.  this year he should be even stronger.  hard to judge the value of this since theyll be playing in different divisions and ballparks, but im going to go ahead and say i bet cook puts up better numbers than jennigns in every meaningful pitching category except strikeouts next year.  thats right i said it.  hes going to be that good.  he is going to do a great job at being "the man!" if you will.  beyond all that, given the financial circumstances surrounding jennings, the trade we made with him was an absolute steal that will make the club immeasurably better in 2008 than it would have been had we held onto him.  and whether or not it makes us worse in 2007, especially when you consider how good willy t has looked this spring, is very very debatable.  its far from determined yet, of course, but this looks to have an ok chance at being the best trade in rockies history.  i can live with losing with our pseudo-ace for that.

alright that's the end of my rant.  nothing personal, i just feel like youre taking the easy way out by criticizing the loss of jennings without looking at what we really got in return and where the team is as a result of it.  i strongly believe there is a here, here, and youll be happy to be around it come july or august.

Rockies in October.

by LarryB303 on Mar 21, 2007 11:15 AM MDT up reply actions  

LarryB for the win
I'd give you a high-five if I could, sir. Well done.
Die-hard Rockies fan. On the bandwagon since 4/2/93. Not giving up my seat. EVER.

by Franchise26 on Mar 21, 2007 11:56 AM MDT up reply actions  

Ummmm....
.....I suppose I did not make my point well....I was talking about leadership. Not the actual act of pitching..... You certainly found the circular logic in my verbiage (and pointed it out without the bother of punctuation) but you missed my point.

Show of hands? - Who here when they see AC on the mound wants to walk up to him and stuff him in a locker? Anyone? Anyone? - I have seen a competitive swagger from one pitcher and it was Francis...That is all I am saying.

If you are telling me that this is all BS and it really is about the numbers which I believe show a consistency that does not exist then I cannot argue with you but a game where no runs are given up followed by one where 8 runs are given up gives you an ERA of 4.00...This is what the numbers say and I think it's crap...

Past numbers have never painted an accurate picture of what has happened on the field at Coors and lining them up as a predictor of what is going to happen this year is a s inaccurate as it has been every other year.

I have been watching the pitcher not the pitch and I am tellin ya, from that vantage point we've got trouble....

HERE IS TO HOPING I AM DEAD WRONG! - Cheers!

Ricky Rockie

by Rickie Rockie on Mar 22, 2007 1:32 PM MDT up reply actions  

I actually think your point has some merit
Last season when the Rockies needed a pitcher to step up and stop the slide we experienced in July/August, none did. When we needed one to beat the Dodgers or the Mets or another top team, no one stepped up. Cook struggled mightily in starts against the NL West, where it matters most, while looking solid everywhere else. For the Rockies to compete in 2007, that has to change.

I think Cook is moving in the right direction this Spring. His numbers don't bear it out just yet as he's been tinkering with his pitch selection, but he's showing that he gets it. That he can't just throw his sinker everytime and not expect opponents to key in on it. I think we'll see a different pitcher this season, but I don't fault you for your skepticism.

by Rox Girl on Mar 22, 2007 2:03 PM MDT up reply actions  

BTW....
....I seemed to have touched a nerve. Sorry 'bout that. Did not mean to start a kerfuffle. It is just a feeling I have.

Wrong? Hopefully! Probably!

"Pointless" I thought was a little strong...

-Ricky Rockie

by Rickie Rockie on Mar 22, 2007 1:50 PM MDT up reply actions  

Exception...
I don't feel anyone is ignoring the fact that losing JJ hurt our rotation.  That is obvious.  But what needs to be addressed in that argument is that if we had kept JJ, we would have more then likely lost him at the end of the season, with nothing received in return.  That would have hurt more then trading him now does.  Now, we have a promising proven centerfielder who can bat leadoff and take the extra base whenever he feels like it.  

We also recieved one hell of a prospect in Hirsh, who has slotted right into the rotation.  He will experience some growing pains, yes, but he has the ability to make us forget that trading our all-time wins leader hurt.  Then we also recieved Buchholz, who can spot start, shut down hitters in the late innings, and do pretty much whatever we ask of him.

Trading JJ did weaken our rotation for a time.  But the benefits in this case highly outweigh the negatives here.  If we hadn't traded JJ, at the end of the season, we don't have a centerfielder, a serviceable starter with massive potential, and a great bullpen arm.  We would be looking at massive holes in our rotation and lineup, and then try to have to figure out replacements for that.  The future is bright.

by MattTheRock on Mar 21, 2007 11:55 AM MDT up reply actions  

cnnsi.com rockies preview
as far as these bullshit national previews go, i thought their take on the rockies was pretty fair--and with some good quotes by o'dowd.

by Good Ol Larry on Mar 21, 2007 12:01 PM MDT reply actions  

Some other Rockies related reading today:
Jayson Stark has a column that puts a bit of a damper on the BK trade rumors, saying that as much as O'Dowd is selling, he's not getting any takers thus far. Also are prominent mentions of Garrett Atkins and Brad Hawpe as players who "are ready to explode to a whole new level." Hawpe, I can buy, but really how much higher can Atkins go from last season?

In a chat for subscribers at BP, Kevin Goldstein says he doesn't see EY Jr having much of an impact at the MLB level. My view is that this is the safe pick, but my guess is that what happens at Modesto this year will change a lot of pundits' feelings on the matter.

by Rox Girl on Mar 21, 2007 12:55 PM MDT reply actions  

Pitching Strength
I'm doing a preview for the Rockies, and I don't see how pitching is a strength. As a lowly Dodger fan, could you please enlighten me?

Here's how I see your rotation:

Cook: Solid number two starter, but since his strikeout rates are terrible, he could get into a lot of trouble.

Francis: A lot of room to improve. Right now his ERA is way ahead of peripherals. 5.29 K/9 isn't going to get it done. Still, he's young but he's still not much but potential.

Kim: Would be a solid number three guy, but right now it looks like the Rockies are doing everything they can do get rid of him.

Lopez: Terrible pitcher. He's been hurt by the jack his entire career and moving to Coors isn't going to help that at all. All of his peripherals have been on a pretty steady decline since he turned 27 in 2003.

Fogg: Is Josh Fogg.

I think that a rotation of Cook/Francis/Kim/Hirsh/Someone would be a fine rotation for the rookies, but ditching Kim for the random assortment of fifth starters you have, seems to leave the rotation with two decent pitchers and three really bad ones.

I could be totally off about this, would you please enlighten me?

truebluela.com

by regfairfield @ Purple Row on Mar 21, 2007 1:43 PM MDT reply actions  

Re:
You're overrating Kim (by a lot) and underrating Rodrigo (who should find equilibrium between his awful 2006 and his fairly OK rest of his career, unless this spring is an indication that he's toast). Just my two cents.
Die-hard Rockies fan. On the bandwagon since 4/2/93. Not giving up my seat. EVER.

by Franchise26 on Mar 21, 2007 1:55 PM MDT up reply actions  

Re
Kim's 2006 was really good for a Rockies pitcher. Over 7 K/9, 2.1 K/BB, 1.04 HR/9, he just got screwed on balls in play. The man put up better strikeout and K/BB than Francis or Cook. Is there some fatal flaw I'm missing?

Like I said, Lopez's strikeout rates are fine, but his home run rate has gone up every year since he was 27. Why would coming to Colorado stop his decline?

truebluela.com

by regfairfield @ Purple Row on Mar 21, 2007 1:58 PM MDT up reply actions  

The humidor
I hope you didn't read that I actually think the pitching for Colorado is a strength per se, certainly it's not, especially not at the level for the Dodgers, it's just not as terrible as you and others seem to be making it out to be.

For Lopez, there are areas where the park factors at Coors haven't gone down much since it's been installed, but one that has dramatically is the HR rate. So the old norms when it comes to automatically upping the HR's of any pitcher that comes to Coors shouldn't be applied. I still think he leaves his pitches up too often and during Spring, he's had his problems getting hit hard, I'm not sold on him even if I think the HR rates will stabilize.

As far as Kim, his BABIP seems to be a serious recurring issue, not an unlucky one. His pitches don't have the same sink tendencies as Cook or Francis, and he too has issues of leaving too much up in the zone when he gets behind in the count. I think he minimizes his walks by getting hit some time.

I think you are also underestimating Jimenez as far as our bench is concerned. Outside of Billingsley and possibly Lincecum, he's the most promising starter prospect in the division that's likely to  come into a team's rotation at some point this season.

by Rox Girl on Mar 21, 2007 2:29 PM MDT up reply actions  

Re
Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. I was completely oblivious to how good Jimenez was.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on Lopez. My argument isn't really that he's a terrible pitcher in Coors, it's that he's a terrible pitcher period and has no right taking starts away from Hirsh.

I'll be a lot easier on the Rockies staff in my preview, but it's still not going to keep me from picking them to finish fourth :).

truebluela.com

by regfairfield @ Purple Row on Mar 21, 2007 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions  

I understand the fourth place projection
That's where I had the team at the start of the Spring as well. I'm just convinced at this point that Arizona's not ready and our lineup this season beats everybody in the division.

By the way, the Rockies starting pitching will be a little weak for one more season, but I would be careful not to overlook the staff for 2008. Cook, Jimenez, Francis and Hirsh will be a productive and solid top four with one more year of maturity and we have Franklin Morales and Greg Reynolds knocking on the door. This (as well as LA's Billingsley, Elbert et al) is where I see projections such as Perry's that have Arizona running away with the division for a few seasons in a row as extremely problematic.

by Rox Girl on Mar 21, 2007 3:09 PM MDT up reply actions  

Kim wasn't good
Kim was wildly inconsistent.

The average of his performances was ok, especially for a Colorado pitcher, but he constantly flip-flopped from out-of-control to totally hittable to nearly unhittable.

He definitely was improved from where he was the last few years but he was still a disaster waiting to happen.  I don't see how he could possibly put together two consecutive seasons where he successfully walked THAT fine of a line all year long.

by MADness on Mar 21, 2007 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions  

well...
you're overrating kim.

kim and fogg and lopez are shit.

a rotation of:  cook, francis, hirsh, jimenez, and lawrence is above average.

and cook has more upside than you give him credit for.  although, you're right that he could never be an ace since people don't swing and miss at his pitches.

by Good Ol Larry on Mar 21, 2007 2:20 PM MDT reply actions  

I like Fogg better then most here
so I'd say a rotation of

Cook, Francis, Hirsh, Fogg and Lawrence would be OK.

I do hope we get Cook, Francis, Hirsch, Jimenez plus Lawrence soon.

I'm worried the powers that be will give Lopez too long a trail period before pulling the trigger and seeing him for what he's worth...nothing

And Yes...KIM SUCKS.  Catch him in the right inning..he can look great.....His speeds are down, and his location constency doesn't help.

Cook is a sinker ball pitcher.  Not many K's.  But if Webb can win a Cy Young..then Cook can be a #1 pitcher.

by Redhawk on Mar 21, 2007 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Colorado Rockies, established 28 April 2005.

Community Guidelines
RockiesRoster.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Getattachment_small
# 2 Tulo ...
Rockieshat1_small
Purple Row Cares: In memory of Thomas Harding's son
Small
On Addiction and Major League Baseball
Paul_by_jerichasmall_small
PRMLB February Thread
Small
Musical Analysis of Baseball
Rockies1_small
2012 Projected Opening Day Payroll
2009__1_small
Opening Day & Fireworks Tickets
Img_1229_small
PRMLB: The January Thread
Avatar_small
Off Season Picture Time
Happy-face_small
Taking Out The Trash (And How Michael Cuddyer Can Help Us Do It)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Colorado Sports Blogs

Mile High Report (Denver Broncos)
Mile High Hockey (Colorado Avalanche)
Denver Stiffs (Denver Nuggets)
Burgundy Wave (Colorado Rapids)
The Ralphie Report (CU Buffaloes)
SB Nation Denver

Top 30 PuRPs

  1. Drew Pomeranz, LHP - AA/MLB
  2. Nolan Arenado, 3B - A (Adv)
  3. Wilin Rosario, C - AA/MLB
  4. Chad Bettis, RHP - A (Adv)
  5. Tyler Matzek, A (Adv), A
  6. Alex White, AA/MLB
  7. Kyle Parker, OF - A
  8. Tim Wheeler, OF - AA
  9. Josh Rutledge, SS - A (Adv)
  10. Charlie Blackmon, OF - MLB
  11. Rosell Herrera, SS/3B - Rookie
  12. Trevor Story, SS/3B - Rookie
  13. Edwar Cabrera, LHP - A (Adv)
  14. Tyler Anderson, LHP - unassigned
  15. Rafael Ortega, OF - A
  16. Peter Tago, RHP, A
  17. Christian Friedrich, LHP - AA
  18. Joe Gardner, RHP - AA
  19. Corey Dickerson, OF - Low-A
  20. Thomas Field, 2B - AA
  21. Will Swanner, C - Rookie
  22. Kent Matthes, OF - A (Adv)
  23. Albert Campos, RHP - A
  24. Jordan Pacheco, C/UT - AAA/MLB
  25. Cristhian Adames, SS - A
  26. Ben Paulsen, 1B - AA
  27. Josh Slaats, RHP - Low-A
  28. David Kandilas, CF - Rookie
  29. Jayson Aquino, LHP - DSL
  30. Hector Gomez, SS - AA/MLB
HM:  
Edgmer Escalona, RHP - AAA/MLB
Dillon Thomas, OF - Rookie
Sam Mende, IF - Rookie
Mike Zuanich, 1B - AA
Dan Houston, RHP - AA

updated 10/25/2011. 


Managers

Rox_girl_small Rox Girl

35l7yvb_small Andrew Martin

Staff

Jeff_aberle_small Jeff Aberle

Poison-the-well-the-tropic-rot_small Bryan Kilpatrick

Avatar2_small Andrew T. Fisher

Wittgenstein_small Greg Stanwood

Special Assistants to the GM

Rockies_lost_americana_small holly96