FanHome - View Single Post

HoyaRoxFan · 02-29-2008, 01:57 AM

That's exactly my point, HF. Looking at the money as presented here, it sounds like I can't be too critical. And in so far as it gives the Rockies financial certainty, I suppose the point is so long as we keep winning, those victories will lead to greater and greater profits for the organization, which in turn can be spent offering more attractive multi-year deals to free agents in the future to fill in the gaps (which maybe they couldn't do much of this off-season becuase they were still unsure what they'd be paying their SS, LF, rotation, et cetera). So in that sense, let's do it - lock up as many of these guys as we can.

But thinking out loud a bit further: I couldn't tell you who is more of a sure thing at this point - Corpas or Weathers - and yet by means of a multi-year deal and a first-round pick respectively, we've expressed a very real commitment to both. My understanding is Weathers could be called up by late this year, and if Corpas were to struggle, Weathers might displace his role as early as next year. In other words, we have insurance on the closer role should Corpas struggle or get hurt bad. We're unwilling to lock up Atkins via a similar commitment, in large part because we have Stewart. We are willing to lock up Tulo despite having Nelson, Herrera, et cetera, because he's just that good. Why is Corpas more Tulo than Atkins, and thus somebody you need to lock up now?

And just a question to throw out there: how rare are relievers like Mariano Rivera who can rattle off 3, 4, 5 good years in a row? Incredible suggested Corpas should settle into a 3.00 reliever for years to come, which I'm all for. But isn't it reasonably likely that he might throw a sub-par year in there at some point over the next four years (I hope he doesn't), which would give the Rockies some discount leverage in arbitration where he not locked up?

I'm not trying to be critical of the organization, just trying to follow the logic of this conservative and (thus far) successful approach. This one doesn't seem to fit it for me.

02-29-2008, 01:57 AM	#13 (permalink)
HoyaRoxFan Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 273	That's exactly my point, HF. Looking at the money as presented here, it sounds like I can't be too critical. And in so far as it gives the Rockies financial certainty, I suppose the point is so long as we keep winning, those victories will lead to greater and greater profits for the organization, which in turn can be spent offering more attractive multi-year deals to free agents in the future to fill in the gaps (which maybe they couldn't do much of this off-season becuase they were still unsure what they'd be paying their SS, LF, rotation, et cetera). So in that sense, let's do it - lock up as many of these guys as we can. But thinking out loud a bit further: I couldn't tell you who is more of a sure thing at this point - Corpas or Weathers - and yet by means of a multi-year deal and a first-round pick respectively, we've expressed a very real commitment to both. My understanding is Weathers could be called up by late this year, and if Corpas were to struggle, Weathers might displace his role as early as next year. In other words, we have insurance on the closer role should Corpas struggle or get hurt bad. We're unwilling to lock up Atkins via a similar commitment, in large part because we have Stewart. We are willing to lock up Tulo despite having Nelson, Herrera, et cetera, because he's just that good. Why is Corpas more Tulo than Atkins, and thus somebody you need to lock up now? And just a question to throw out there: how rare are relievers like Mariano Rivera who can rattle off 3, 4, 5 good years in a row? Incredible suggested Corpas should settle into a 3.00 reliever for years to come, which I'm all for. But isn't it reasonably likely that he might throw a sub-par year in there at some point over the next four years (I hope he doesn't), which would give the Rockies some discount leverage in arbitration where he not locked up? I'm not trying to be critical of the organization, just trying to follow the logic of this conservative and (thus far) successful approach. This one doesn't seem to fit it for me. Last edited by HoyaRoxFan; 02-29-2008 at 01:59 AM.