Monday Morning Rockpile:

by Rox Girl on May 21, 2007 8:59 AM MDT in Rockpile Comment 17 comments

Todd Helton's quote from yesterday's Rockpile got me to thinking about who really is to blame for the Rockies' mounting losses, if not the pinch hitter, and if Todd's implying that he'd rather see us cut them loose. Here's the Rox top five and bottom five in WPA, a stat that's pretty good at measuring who's coming up big and who's flunking out in important situations:

Todd Helton 1.64
Matt Holliday 1.55
Troy Tulowitzki 1.51
Kazuo Matsui 0.45
Chris Iannetta 0.39
Jeff Baker -0.64
Willy Taveras -0.67
Jamey Carroll -0.74
Steve Finley -0.95
Garrett Atkins -1.00

It's kind of surprising, actually, isn't it? I mean, we're obviously missing Kaz (who returns tonight, yeay!!) but that Iannetta would actually rank fifth is a pretty bad indictment of how bad the team outside the top three has been in run producing situations this year. And this also means that yesterday, when Clint Hurdle pinch hit for Iannetta with Jeff Baker with the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the eighth, he was actually taking the hitter who's been more trustworthy in clutch situations out of the game. Baker's performance in that situation actually bumped John Mabry out of the fifth worst slot, so the pinch hitter who wasn't pinch hitting probably still deserved the axe by Helton's standards, but the question remains what to do about those bottom three names.

O'Dowd wants Tulo to move to the fifth or sixth slot in the lineup, which would bump Atkins down to a less damaging slot, but that decision is up to Clint Hurdle, according to Patrick Saunders. What are the bets that he makes the right call on this one? At least it also means that Carroll gets benched, but there is a drawback in that our best left handed bat off the bench (Omar Quintanilla) now will probably head back to the minors.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rosenthal

In his latest notes, he mentions Atkins is high on the Angels wish list, and that Brandon Wood could be a piece in the deal.

Santana and Wood for Atkins?

by Rockiesbiggestfan on May 21, 2007 11:19 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I would do that deal,

The link for the article is here.

Brandon Wood is as talented as Garrett -probably more, even though he might be a season or two away from reaching that potential. Right now, I think the Rockies still are proving themselves unready for this year, and this upgrade in talent will be of benefit to the team at exactly the right time we'll need it. Preferably, Wood would move to second before Stewart goes to the outfield. We'd then have to focus on re-signing Matt Holliday, which would be tough, but necessary at that point.

To me, Santana and Wood would be too much for the Angels to give up at this point to be equitable for them. I'd try for Saunders or Rich Thompson, as they probably wouldn't touch Adenhart.

by Rox Girl on May 21, 2007 11:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wood is a king's ransom

in my opinion. Though he's currently struggling like Atkins, his past minor league numbers suggest superiority to Atkins, as he projects to a Glaus with defense type third baseman, could still handle short, and would be Jeff Kent at second. Factor in his age and controllable years, not to mention the possibility that Atkins peak year may have been last year, and this doesn't make sense from Anaheim's end.

I think Santana for Atkins may ultimately be the deal should one go down, and Rosenthal on the radio today also mentioned that he thinks that an Atkins trade is a real possibility. That may not be the best return on Atkins of last year, but we need to start wondering if we should be expecting last year's Atkins again in the future. Santana and Sean Rodriguez would be a great deal on our end (though also unlikely).

If we really are aiming for Wood, we should expand the deal on our end, perhaps with Koshansky? Before any of this, the Rockies will have to settle the Helton situation, which according to both Rosenthal and Renck on MLB Home Plate on XM today, will soon be a hot issue.

by David OhNo on May 21, 2007 3:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sold on Santana

(unless you're talking about Johan, which I somehow doubt. ;) ) 3-5/5.06 isn't that different, and is in fact worse, than what we've already been running out there. Not to mention that ghastly home/road split: Ervin's an other-Santana-like 3-1/2.33 within the confines of Angel Stadium, while he morphs into a Mike Hampton-like 0-4/7.86 on the road. He is young (25 in December) but our track record with pitching prospects isn't that great. I'm not sure about Wood, as why would we need another young third baseman if we're going to ship Atkins out with the express intention of having Stewart take over? Wood is hitting .237/5/21 at Triple-A Salt Lake, and I admittedly don't know that much about him, but I wonder if he'd be able to produce at the big-league level. Minor-league stats are a gaudy thing... until you get to the Show.

There's also the question of what would happen if the Rockies shipped both Helton and Atkins out, then didn't re-sign Holliday -- what kind of message would that send? "Okay, we got a couple good years out of these guys, now it's back to the rebuilding phase yet again?" If, as is widely speculated, Koshansky may not be ready to contribute at the big-league level, who will play first? There are other scenarios tossed around of clearing off the payroll by trading Helton, promoting Stewart to play the hot corner, and moving Atkins back to his natural position at first. But if both Helton and Atkins are gone, are we willing to take our chances on Koshansky and Stewart? What would the Rockies be saying if they got rid of guys every time they finally became legit major-league players and no longer "prospects?" Young players are the future of the game, but I for one get a little tired of the constant turnover within the organization. This may be a complete pipe dream, but I wish management would stick with their established players a little longer.

I'm not sure that the slow start for Garrett this year heralds the start of a steep decline, as there are a number of other stars, even the infallible Pujols, who haven't really found their swings. He's still young, still good, under club control until 2011, and only making $400,000, and it's rare to find players with all those traits. So although everyone may be frustrated by his somnolent offensive performance to date (including myself, mind you) I don't think we need to hit the panic button and ship him out just yet.

And besides, I don't want him to go. He's one of my favorite players. There, I said it. You can talk statistics and splits until your face turns blue, but there's a human element to the game too, and I for one would be very, very upset to see Garrett go.

Get Demented. Chairwoman of the Free Sean Barker/Chris Iannetta Campaigns. SPILLY SUCCESSFULLY FREED!

by Silverblood on May 21, 2007 3:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple of answers

I match your skeptisism on Santana, but I think there is a scout-side that finds a lot of upside left in Ervin, which why, despite solid average but unspectacular results, he's always a name brought up in trade talks. I don't think it's fair to lump Santana in with some of the dredge we've slopped out there this season.

As for Atkins, Pujols comparisons are silly, as for one, Albert has a track record of success, and two, he's still playing at an acceptable level. What many ignore about Atkins is that most scouts and stats' projections of Atkins never foresaw a season like last year's, and with an unusually high BABIP of .340 in 2006, it's apparent that luck had something to do with 2007. While he's been unlucky this season, he's also hiked his K rate up by over 4%, and lower his walk rate 1%, which suggests more than unluckiness. He's not this bad a player, but, at 27, will he again be as good as he was last year? Because the team relies so much on economical outs from their pitchers, defense is a priority if you can't hit, and Atkins also has failed in this category. I think the team has to start to wonder if those projections on Atkins from his minor leagues and rookie season were more apt than the season he had in 2006. With arbitration coming up this year, it does make sense if the team can make a good haul from Atkins to continue to cut cost in hopes of retaining other players.

I don't think the team can trade both Helton and Atkins in the same year...

Lastly, attendance and interest in the Rockies is clearly down, so they should care less what fans like you or I think of players as long as they work to build a winner. If they can deal Atkins for Wood, but it spurns some fans, should they care? No, the Rockies need to build for their next fan base, as their current one isn't supportive enough to justify keeping players that aren't producing. As long as the moves are made with the intention to produce a winner, and the club does in fact start winning, fans will flock back to the park even if the team is without Helton/Atkins/Holliday...

The bottom line is that the team never should have sold itself as a contender this year, and shouldn't tie their fates too heavily with the current "core" if it isn't the right core. I may be a Willy Taveras fan, but if we have to move him for a player I don't like (say Rowand) but stands a better chance to help the winning cause, I shouldn't care. Likewise, if Atkins is the casualty for a bonafide talent like Wood, we shouldn't care. Winning, not a forced collection of "stars," will attract fans back to the park.

by David OhNo on May 21, 2007 4:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope that Wood is indeed

as you call him, a bonafide talent, and not just another highly-achieving minor leaguer that will sputter out once he hits the Show. I'd be leery of trading for him now, since his minor league experience is limited to 11 at-bats and 1 hit. Likewise, if he's projected to be as good as everyone thinks he can be, then why can't the Angels put some time into the Rockies' favorite catchword, and develop him? I'm not arguing against acquiring him, but I am arguing against acquiring him just because he's "supposed" to be good. If we're thinking about making a 3B-for-3B swap and the production is currently about at equal levels, then what would be the point? (For both Anaheim and us, for that matter. It seems they'd be more keen on keeping a 22-year-old than trading for a 27-year-old, but as someone pointed out, the Angels have placed a premium on single-season production in the past). If they need an upgrade at the hot corner, then if Atkins, as you say, doesn't provide much more and possibly less than Wood, why would they pull the trigger? I suspect Stoneman may be trying to buy low and hope he can groom Atkins back into the player he was last year. But if Wood is so good, why isn't their solution to their third-base problems to be found within the organization? There is no reason they shouldn't bring him up for a look-see, just to judge if they can get adequate production, and if he's not Major League ready, I oppose dealing an established major league player for him.

Right now, if Atkins slumping is still worth Santana and/or Wood, I think O'Dowd (if he is planning this trade at all, which management has denied) should wait and see. It's only May and it's still likely that at least some of Atkins' unluckiness could correct himself. The spike in the K rate and the drop in the walk rate is alarming, but if a couple more of those liners had gotten past someone or made it over Andruw's head, for example, his average would be higher than it is. Of course, the what-if game can be played to death, and what only matters is the results on the field, but I think that, if perhaps not the MVP-caliber player he was last year, Atkins is still better than what he's shown thus far.

I agree that the team should not have marketed itself as a contender, but they always say that each current group of players is a core. Well, we're still looking for that right touch. If it won't be Helton/Atkins/Holliday, will it be Koshanksy/Stewart/Barker? When will the search actually end, or are we just a revolving door to develop good players that we then trade off? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here; I do wonder what the heck can be done to fix this organization. The losing is frustrating and it's all we've really ever known, and I for one, along with everyone else on the Row, wants to see it end -- but will a constant revolving door lead us to this end? Are we like the Brewers, hoping that years of high draft picks will finally lead us to our glory days?

As for the Pujols/Atkins comparison, perhaps it's a bit overreaching, but I did want to point out that there are others who haven't performed at their accustomed level this year. What that might be for Atkins, we still don't know, and I just hope that we don't make a deal for a young third baseman that doesn't pan out and Stoneman ends up getting the last laugh. For no other reason than I hate the Angels, and that would be deeply aggravating. If we acquire Wood for Atkins, so be it; I'll be upset. If we win, it will make it better. If it doesn't work out, and we just keep losing, I'll be even more upset. Why is Wood one of the missing pieces? Who knows.

Get Demented. Chairwoman of the Free Sean Barker/Chris Iannetta Campaigns. SPILLY SUCCESSFULLY FREED!

by Silverblood on May 21, 2007 4:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll answer a little of this;

It has to do with something that's sometimes called the success cycle, and where teams feel they are at in that cycle will determine what kinds of trades they feel like they should make. The Angels' already have an established level of year-in, year out contention that will last only as long as their starting rotation remains in the prime of their careers. By trading for or signing established players such as Atkins, they try to maximize and lengthen their ride on that cycle.

The Rockies, on the other hand, haven't yet reached that point, or come particularly close. In years past, they haven't had the major league talent, or even enough players with the potential of contending talent, to think about retaining players like Jason Jennings, Justin Speier and Joe Kennedy, who were probably the only legitimate players they've dealt over the last few seasons, despite all the moans of fans and media that say they are constantly rebuilding. Holding onto mid-level or worse players as they get expensive creates useless roadblocks for real quality players like Holliday and Tulowitzki and Atkins. Right now, however, the Rockies, like the Devil Rays and Diamondbacks, are at a cusp of having the ability to compete because they finally have enough of these quality players to build a team around. This year is proving that they aren't quite there yet, though, and they have to make some tricky decisions whether keeping Atkins into his decline outweighs getting Wood as he heads into his prime.

The Angels need to offer higher potential to get an immediate return for this season, and the Rockies have to weigh the risk of a player like Wood (or Jason Hirsh) not meeting their upside before making the deal. I'd definitely take this one, as Wood's talent at every level and at a younger age has surpassed what Atkins did.

by Rox Girl on May 21, 2007 5:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of that aside

I still have one more logistical question. If we intend on getting Wood, how does that affect Stewart? I doubt we're planning to platoon two highly regarded prospects. At this point, it would make more sense for the deal (should it go down) to be Santana for Atkins, and I don't like the idea of a pitcher that "could" be good, and yet, this year, still hasn't achieved his potential. I don't care what scouts see if he isn't bringing it to the field and consistently producing. It was rumored earlier in the year the Angels were mulling a demotion for him, and while God knows we need pitching help, I don't like the idea of trading our established third baseman for their mercurial is-he-or-isn't-he possible greatness, possible burnout. The Angels have some quality arms -- if they want Atkins, they should give us one with proven talent in return.

Get Demented. Chairwoman of the Free Sean Barker/Chris Iannetta Campaigns. SPILLY SUCCESSFULLY FREED!

by Silverblood on May 21, 2007 5:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also forgot to add

that third base isn't a position in which we have need, seeing how highly Stewart is regarded. So why would we need to trade away a third baseman for another third baseman that might cause playing time conflicts with him? As I mentioned, the most logical trade would be Atkins for a pitcher, and while I would always appreciate help in this sector, for some reason, I don't necessarily see it coming from Santana. I'd be more willing to listen if it was another name being tossed around -- I wish that O'Dowd would insist on a proven pitcher instead of taking a flyer on one that may or may not achieve his potential. The Angels are known for their pitching, so let's not just take the first name they throw at us. Santana has been a problem for them in the past and Atkins hasn't been one for us until now, so let's at least try to get somebody who has a better-than-average chance of working out. Saunders or Moseley, maybe, if Stoneman absolutely can't be enticed to give up one of his established starters.

Get Demented. Chairwoman of the Free Sean Barker/Chris Iannetta Campaigns. SPILLY SUCCESSFULLY FREED!

by Silverblood on May 21, 2007 5:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The linked article talks about moving

Stewart to the outfield, but to me, the more logical option would be to move Wood to second base. He played shortstop most of the way through the minors and is at third based mostly on his size and arm strength, not because of range issues.

I agree completely with you BTW on Santana, I think the hype has outlived the performance for too long on that arm, and would find an Atkins for Earvin trade difficult to swallow. If it was for Moseley or Saunders and another player, I would be much more happy with it.

by Rox Girl on May 21, 2007 6:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like Stewart in the outfield either

Especially if the power levels out around 20-25 homers. With his defensive skills at third, his current offensive skills woud profile best in that position, but should he move to the outfield, he loses one of his best assets, and the bat would need to show more pop.

I like Wood to second, but he too could play several outfield positions. He has the arm strength for it, and his overall athleticism could make him a sleeper centerfield candidate.

by David OhNo on May 21, 2007 6:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Position for Wood

Wood is a guy who is a borderline SS with great power (both present and projected).

Projecting him to 3rd or 2nd (could you imagine his bat at 2nd and playing half of his games at Coors?) doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.

by MADness on May 21, 2007 8:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

and also want to say that Silverblood makes all the right counterpoints. There is no guarantee of success for a player like Brandon Wood, nor is there a focal point for expected projections for Atkins. That is why baseball is still an inexact science, and teams have to ultimately do what is in the best interest for winning, and I think O'Dowd does this. I don't always agree with his moves, like his choice in relievers, but I have yet to see a move recently that was made with questionable intentions in regards to winning.

This is where I'd think a Wood/Atkins trade marks an area, like rox girl points out, that reflects a decisions to try and upgrade at the right time. When the next wave of players is ready to contribute at a major league level, it's likely Atkins would be starting his post-peak. Had things gone differently for this team, Atkins would be considered a viable chip for competitiveness, but it's now looking like next year will be the blossom year (Reynolds, Hynick, Fowler, Jimenez, Stewart, Koshansky, Smith, Herrera, Morales all on doorstep or getting feet wet) with 2009 being our next legitimate foray into real contention. I'm sure most poster will roll their eyes when they read that, but looking at the financial circumstances and state of the system, that's what we can optimistically hope for.

I think "cores" are good for marketing purposes, but competitively, branding can be dangerous, as players can become an identity in a franchise that need replacing. I wouldn't necessarily put Atkins in this category, I think such titles lead to unrealistic expectations (Barmes is a good example). A good "youth" movement works in waves, just because a couple of players show major league competency doesn't mean they necessarily fit the mold of the franchise. You keep what works, and you take the parts that don't best fit and you deal them for replacements. For example, Francis fits, Corpas fits, Holliday fits, it looks like Tulowitzki fits, and I'd also say Hawpe fits. A player like Atkins is solid, but his defense in a groundball oriented staff means he has to really hit to fit the organizational philosophy. It isn't as much as giving up on Atkins as it is getting value for him. I'm not suggesting we give him away, but should a team surprise the Rockies with an offer like Wood, a player whose improved defense and power should fit in Coors, it makes sense to take the gamble.

There's nothing perfect about the process, and it isn't as simple as "bad manager/GM," but I think this is a process that will work. This team doesn't need to rebuild again, but instead shuffle the deck. Getting near ready prospects or young MLB talent for Atkins, Fuentes, and possibly one of our right fielders (this team always seems to have it out for Hawpe, who's still a very good player when you accept his faults) and even spinning some blocked prospects for more "usable" ones can right the ship. I wouldn't think of it as starting over, though.

by David OhNo on May 21, 2007 5:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't call Wood a king's ransom

Atkins' 2006 established an MLB level of performance that Wood would be happy to match in any season, although I agree that he's entirely capable of it, and should hit seasons like that with greater frequency in his prime. The Angels have placed a high premium on single season performances in the past (see Gary Matthews) and are in a desperate enough fix to solve their corner production woes that it's not a stretch at all for an Atkins-Wood straight up deal, particularly since Wood has been unimpressive this season, both in Anaheim and Salt Lake. I think the Rockies should press for what they can get, but if Wood is all that's offered, it would still be an alright deal.

Helton's only an issue if we were to get a solid offer for him -something comparable to what we were asking from the Red Sox or better, or a complete dispersal of his salary- otherwise, I don't see the reason that his situation would be pressing. He's got a no-trade clause either way, so it's pointless for the Rockies to offer him to other teams, just listen to offers that come, so I'm not sure what settling the situation entails or that there's even a situation to be settled there. I haven't heard of any team actually making an offer since the failed Boston negotiations, so I think this is just idle chatter right now with him.

by Rox Girl on May 21, 2007 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should have clarified

that regarding Helton, Rosenthal and Renck suggested that the team is once again considering forcing the issue with Helton by shopping him in-season. Rosenthal said the contract is still crippling, and that as long as it's on the books, the Rockies won't be able to afford Atkins or Holliday even if the players wanted to stay. I see what you're saying, but the reality of the situation may be that this may not be O'Dowd's decision. Helton's increased performance (He's tied for tenth in VORP for position players) would suggest that even with the Rockies assuming a smaller portion they should still get talent in return.

I wouldn't expect any serious Rockies deals for another two months, though.

by David OhNo on May 21, 2007 6:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs