Friday Morning Rockpile:

by Russ Oates on Apr 20, 2007 6:53 AM MDT in Rockpile Comment 33 comments

Buchholz is not necessarily Monday's starter. Apparently Brian Lawrence could be the answer. I've lost track of how the rotation goes now, so who will be pitching on Tuesday and Wednesday at Shea? I'll be at those two games.

Should we believe Forbes magazine when it reports the Rockies' value as a franchise increased 6% from last year?

Sorry. I'm running a little behind this morning so there isn't much here this morning.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think I can answer my own question

Cook should go on Tuesday, meaning Fogg would go on Wednesday.

by Russ Oates on Apr 20, 2007 7:02 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

You're not the only one running late...

I've been scrambling all week, but I should get a recap up of yesterday's game (blech) sometime before noon mountain time.

by Rox Girl on Apr 20, 2007 8:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

why don't you just....

put up a bunch of 0's and get it over with. I don't think any of us want to dwell on yesterday's game.

by DenverBears on Apr 20, 2007 8:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was a beautiful day

You can remember that part, too bad the game stunk. The Rockie Dogs and Beer were great, as were my seats.

by Redhawk on Apr 20, 2007 9:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brian Lawrence?

I thought we released him.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 8:27 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Lawrence was "designated for assignment"

yesterday (Thursday) which 1) takes him off the 40 man roster to be replaced by Matt Herges 2) allows the Rockies 10 days to either relese him, trade him, or outright him to the minors. I think Lawrence has an out in his off season contract (as most minor league contracts do) to refuse the minor league assignment. (or enough big league service time) If he does that, he'll be a free agent.

To get him on the major league club, and back on the 40 man roster, in time to fill a rotation spot will be impossible (or almost).

That leave's Bulcholtz or Jimenez (or another minor leaguer on the 40 man roster). As the Rockies brought up Herges and McClellan last week to replace Lopez and Kim. The ONLY on staff option is Bulcholtz. Would the club use one of Jimenez options on a 1 or 2 spot start situation?

by Redhawk on Apr 20, 2007 9:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Options"

I think you're missing the bill on the whole "options" thing. You have three option years, and in those years you can be optioned to the minors as much as the team would like. I'm fairly sure that Ubaldo was on the 40-man roster in 2005, which means that this is his final option year (I may be mistaken, though, and 2006 was his first year on the 40-man.) Even though Ubaldo was not called up to the majors at all in 2005, that would have used up one of his options if he was on the 40-man roster for all or part of the season.

This means that the Rockies are free to move Ubaldo between the majors and minors as much as they would like this season. He's only "out of options" when his three years are up.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 9:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

looks like you are right

Thanks. I've always thought there were X amount of call up/send downs a team could make withen that 3 years time span. But if they are already on the 40 man, there is no limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_transactions
(yeah, yeah it's wikipedia)

Basicly it says what you did.

Oh, and I also looked up Lawrence. He does have 5 years major league experience so he could refuse the Rockies minor league assignment if he wanted to.

by Redhawk on Apr 20, 2007 9:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

That was actually where I looked it up as well. :) (I actually knew it already, but I had to look it up to confirm my knowledge.)

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 9:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Typical Hurdle

I think this delay tactic is just stalling on Hurdle's part. Bringing back Lawrence would just be stupid. First, like Redhawk said, it would be very hard to get Lawrence back on the roster. not only would someone have to be sent to AAA to make room on the active roster, someone else would have to be outrighted to make room on the 40-man roster. Why would you bring up Herges to fill the 40 man roster if you were considering having Lawrence make those starts? Besides, I think Lawrence might be a little ticked that he got told that the Rockies don't need him, and then come crawling back to get him to start for probably only two weeks and then cut him again. Then there's Lawrences 3 ugly AAA starts. Yeah, sure, let's make him the starter (note my sarcasm).

As for Jimenez, while he remains an option, he is scheduled to start tonight for the Sky Sox in Las Vegas so he would not be able to turn around and start on Monday unless he only pitches a couple of innings tonight. Also, to bring up Jimenez, someone has to be sent back to AAA.

The only logical solution is to move Buchholz into the rotation. Of course, that's the "logical" thing which means that Hurdle may not do that. I don't know why Hurdle and O'Dowd seem so resistant to let Buchholz start. Taylor has been a starter for almost his entire career and does have some success as a starter in the majors. Yes, Buchholz had his ups and downs in the rotation last year but most rookies do. They need to just put Buchholz in the rotation and give him an actual chance to show what he can do in the rotation.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 11:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lawrence was not designated for assignment...

...yesterday, despite what you may of read. A lot of media outlets are reporting false information.

Brian Lawrence also lingers as a possibility, but faces complications. Lawrence cleared waivers and Herges took his spot on the 40-man roster. The Rockies, however, told Lawrence's agent that they are still interested in the right-hander. -Denver Post

Herges' contract was purchased from Colorado Springs. The Rockies were expected to open up a spot on their 40-man roster for taking pitcher Brian Lawrence off it after he clears waivers today.-Rocky Mountain News

He was placed on waivers on Monday and successfully cleared yesterday morning. He is currently a free agent and could be re-signed if he chooses to do so.

Free Ryan Spilborghs!

by malakian on Apr 20, 2007 12:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes he was

The official press release stated that Lawrence was designated for assignment.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 12:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still don't believe it.

Not unless Troy Renck and Tracy Ringolsby were both given false information by the Rockies Front Office.

For now, I still believe that press release is incorrect.

Free Ryan Spilborghs!

by malakian on Apr 20, 2007 1:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Denver writers

I don't think they were given false information. Neither Renck nor Ringolsby stated how Lawrence was removed from the roster, just that he was. I believe Renck and Ringolsby just left out the part about Lawrence being designated for assignment. You can't just take someone off the roster. They either have to be outrighted, released or designated for assignment.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 1:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I'm sure Lawrence was designated for assignment (that was implied with being placed on waivers) and I'm not questioning that part, the only thing I question is when he was DFA'd.

I have another theory:

Lawrence was designated for assignment (placed on release waivers) on Monday, but the move was never officially reported via press release until yesterday.

Free Ryan Spilborghs!

by malakian on Apr 20, 2007 1:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It had to be yesterday

The press release is time stamped at 3:34 pm ET on Thursday, 4-19. That means Lawrence came off of the roster yesterday before the game. You can't take a player off of the roster until they either clear waivers or get picked up by another team. The waiver period is four days. Placing him on waivers on Monday would mean that he could not have been removed from the roster until yesterday.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 1:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more thing

Let me clear this up a little bit. You can pass a player through waivers without immediately designating him for assignment. I know you can designate a player for assignment to immediately clear his roster spot but I do not believe that is how the Rockies went about this. Lawrence was listed on the 40 man roster up until yesterday. In other words, I believe he was put on waivers on Monday but remained on the 40 man roster until yesterday when he was designated for assignment.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 2:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Designating for assignment

Thought I should clear this up... you don't have to designate a player for assignment. Designating a player for assignment simply means that you're going to get the player off the roster while you figure out what you want to do with him. You then have ten days to decide whether to release the player, try to pass him through waivers to send him to the minors, or trade him.

In other words, the Rockies may have decided on Monday that they were going to release Lawrence. Or perhaps "designating him for assignment" means waiting to see if Lawrence will accept an assignment to AAA.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 2:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I meant

Designating a player for assignment immediately clears his spot on the 40-man roster. You then have 10 days to trade, release or reassign that player to the minors. You can designate a player for assignment and then pass the guy through waivers.

What I'm saying is that, looking back to the Denver Posts original article about Lawrence being cut, they did not mention that he was designated for assignment, only that he was told that he was being placed on waivers. I also recall seeing Lawrence on the 40 man roster up until yesterday.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 2:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Or, you can pass a guy through waivers and then designate him for assignment once he's cleared waivers. If the guy clears waivers and accepts an assignment to AAA, this isn't necessary, but that's apparently not what happened here.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 2:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

On that note...

Here's my best guess as to what happened:

Lawrence was placed on waivers and subsequently cleared waivers, meaning the Rockies could assign him to AAA. However, as he has five years' MLB service time, Lawrence had the right to refuse this assignment (which is probably what he did.) The Rockies then had the option of releasing him, but probably didn't want to do this since they would be stuck with the remainder of his contract. But they needed a spot on the 40-man roster for Herges, who was called up when Rodrigo went on the DL.

So, they designated Lawrence for assignment to see if they could work out a trade with someone. If they can't, they'll release him. I'm not sure exactly how this works, but I suppose they could bring him back since nobody claimed him off waivers and have him pitch on Monday, but now they'd have to remove someone else from the 40-man roster to do that.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 2:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

That's exactly what was I getting at in all of my posts. You just put them all together in one post.

As for Lawrence, it sounds like he asked for his release instead of going to the minors. In addition to the full roster being an obsticle, I still don't think brining Lawrence up for two weeks and then releasing him again is a good idea. We need to just stick with what we already have and let Buchholz start.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 2:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is what makes me think

that Hurdle is just blowing smoke and that the Rockies will not be starting Lawrence on Monday. Buchholz will probably be the guy or, if not him, some other in-house option.

From my understanding, clearing waivers means that the team can do something with the player, but it doesn't mean that they have to do something with him. While it was foreseeable on Monday that Rodrigo might have to go on the DL, it wasn't a given. If the Rockies really wanted to start Lawrence, they could have just activated Lawrence once Rodrigo went on the DL. Placing him on waivers (and his subsequent clearing) didn't mean the Rockies had to get rid of him.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 3:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Turns out I was wrong.

Lawrence WAS designated for assignment yesterday.

Troy Renck just posted an article explaining Lawrence's situation:

http://test.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_5714823

Free Ryan Spilborghs!

by malakian on Apr 20, 2007 3:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some more research

Show's Uballo to start tonight in the Springs. So a Monday start for the Rockies is about out (unless Uballo only pitches a couple of innings or not at all)

Eric DuBose is scheduled to start in the Springs on Monday. But he's not on the Rockies 40 man roster.
But even more interesting: Scheduled to pitch Sunday for the Tulsa Drillers is Franklin Morales. Who isn't on the 40 man currently either, but I would assume he would be this off season anyway to avoid loosing him to a rule 5 pick.

So basicly it looks to me like the Bulcholtz is the only real choice for a start on Monday

by Redhawk on Apr 20, 2007 11:12 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Well

there is Jeremy Affeldt who did start games in KC. But that takes out our only lefty (other then Fuentes of 'course) from the pen.

by Redhawk on Apr 20, 2007 11:21 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

That could be wrong

MILB may be showing Jimenez as the starter because it's his turn in the rotation, but if the Rockies want to use him as their starter on Monday they could send the message down to Colorado Springs to sit him tonight.

I seriously doubt the club would call up Morales or Reynolds from AA just to make a spot start, especially since we don't have a spot on the 40-man. Again, with the "options" thing it starts with the first season when the player is on the 40-man, so if Morales is added to the 40-man this offseason then 2008 would be his first option year.

Buchholz looks like the obvious choice, but I wouldn't put it past the Rockies to do something stupid.

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

by Rox Fan in TN on Apr 20, 2007 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jimenez

The Sky Sox homepage also has Uball as the starter for tonight. While I agree that the Rockies could call down and have them change it, Jimenez has been shaky is in last two starts. If the Rockies were unwilling to give UBall a starter spot out of spring training after his great spring, I doubt they'll be to eager to bring him up for a couple weeks when he has struggled in his last couple of AAA outings.

DuBose is in the nearly the same situation as Lawrence in that, in order for them to start, room would have to be made on the 40-man roster. My thinking is if one of them were going to start, they would have brought up Speier or Bautista, who are on the 40-man roster, instead of Herges who had to be added. They also could have brought up Jimenez instead of Herges which further backs up my assertion that the Rockies don't want to bring Jimenez up yet.

I really think it will be Buchholz moving to the rotation. This delay is the same crap that they pulled in spring training when they said that the rotation wasn't set when I believe it was a fixed competition.

by lgh77 on Apr 20, 2007 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs