Monfort on the fate of Clint, Dan, and Todd

[Below C-Level]

Originally Posted by RMF

Half the $$$ is highway robbery we'd better be getting 4-6 of their best guys.

Really? Getting out from under $50 million of his $90 million contract is highway robbery? You want a half dozen of their best prospects too? You know, just to even things out a little? Maybe a hummer from Theo's wife while you're at it?

[BigRapidsJackass]

I always think it's fun to check out what fans of the other club are saying about a trade rumor. And not surprisingly, Red Sox fans hate the Helton rumors:

Sox talking Helton???? - Sons of Sam Horn

Rockies fans may be deluded into thinking that Helton should bring us "4 or 6 of their best players." Meanwhile, check out this wishful thinking from the SoSH board:

Unless Garett Atkins is included in this deal (which he isn't), then I want absolutely no part of it. If the Sox take on Helton, it needs to be the type of deal where we RAPE them, by giving them some salary relief. No way should we be trading Ellsbury, etc for Helton.

Or this one, by Eric Van, who actually is a sabermetrician:

To clarify, I take it you mean that you wouldn't do that trade even if Colorado ate all of the salary differential, i.e., the next six-seven years of Ellsbury are likely to be better than the same years of Helton, period. Which is quite reasonable.

I thought he was being sarcastic. But no. He really seems to mean it. Remember, Ellsbury is the guy who pretty much resembles Chris Duffy at the same age, or Nate McLouth ... or Willy Tavares. Ellsbury may in fact turn out to be the next Johnny Damon (that's what Sox fans love to say), but he'll more likely turn out to be the next Willy Tavares.

Hey, Helton's pricey, and as Sox fans point out ad nauseum:

-- he's 33
-- he has back trouble
-- his OPS fell 100 points from 2004 to 2005, and another 100 points from 2005 to 2006
-- his road numbers last year were downright pedestrian (although nobody but Heltonfan seems to know about the hangover effect): a .781 road OPS

So that's why the Rox need to cover about half his salary. But c'mon Sox fans, there's not a true stud prospect in your organization right now. Ellsbury is roughly equal to Dexter Fowler as a prospect -- he's got talent, but he's very raw and far from ready, and he might fail miserably. Hansen is nothing special. Buchholz has good stuff, but has barely pitched full time for two years. There's no way the Rockies are eating half of Helton's contract AND taking on Lowell's salary AND taking on Clement's salary.

I do, however, fear the Lowell thing. I think O'Dowd could go for that to make the deal seem more "even" to the average fan, and Lowell's contract runs out after '07. But do remember that the Sox still have an extra outfielder named Wily Mo ... he could fit in somewhere too, particularly if the Rox get a third team involved.

[Roxpert]

RotoRox, I also read just as many comments on Red Sox boards (and baseball think factory) saying that the Sox need to make this deal NOW. In reality, opinion in "Red Sox Nation" seems to be split down the middle right now.

[RockieRooter]

According to the Pest this morning, Helton is pushing for a quick resolution - which leaves DO'D with less leverage. There's also the question in my mind about when Helton started pushing. Helton seems to very much want to go to Boston. Before the winter meetings, Boston was throwing out the name of Manny Ramirez, but pulled him back. Then things suddenly heated up a few weeks ago - and there's an apparent deadline placed by Helton. All grist for the mill - but I think it means that Helton will be gone and that the Rox won't get as much as they'd perhaps like from it.

[sg8335aa]

I think what Helton is trying to say is that he doesn't want this thing to be dragged out until Spring Training.

Think of it more along the lines of him voicing his opinion.....I don't consider it a "deadline" as much of a "request"......I don't think this affects leverage at all.

Think of it along the lines of "If your going to trade me, that's fine, but don't make it drawn out." I think we'll find out if a Helton trade goes through in the next week or so......otherwise we'll be keeping him until at least July.

[RockieRooter]

There's also the threat of vetoing all future trades unless a deal is signed before the deadline. To me that's more than a request, it's lighting a fire.

[Roxpert]

Clearly, Helton is the only party with leverage here. He has the ability to force a trade to Boston (if the Red Sox accept the financial terms) by tell DOD that this will be the only window he gets to trade him. If that's what Helton does, he will get his wish and play for the contending Bosox, and we will do the best we can given the situation, which means less market-level talent in return, with our main benefit being salary relief.

I predict the trade gets announced within a week.

[sg8335aa]

I think you're both reading a bit too much into the situation.

There's no evidence that Helton will veto future trades if he isn't dealt quickly....

There's also no evidence that Helton is forcing this trade or any other one.

[RMF]

Originally Posted by Below C-Level

Really? Getting out from under $50 million of his $90 million contract is highway robbery? You want a half dozen of their best prospects too? You know, just to even things out a little? Maybe a hummer from Theo's wife while you're at it?

For clarification I said 4-6. I meant prospects not established MLB players with value.

If we pick up 40+ million over 6 years Helton's contract is about 8.33 million per year that Boston is responsible for. Given the current market for baseball players and the scarcity of players with Helton's level of ability its a steal. Even when you factor in age and injury.

I'm not too far off the mark in asking for between 4-6. Ellsbury and Hansen are already two of their top prospects. I don't think its wrong to ask for more prospects with a higher ceiling. I'm not as interested in guys who can be mediocre now. I'd like guys who could be good later.

And Yes I'll take that hummer from Theo's wife. I need a new vechicle anyway. I hope its black.

All the reports from media have us getting the crap kicked out of us on this deal. Now Olney says the Sox are unwilling to give up Hansen or Declarmen. Give me a break. I think this deal gets done but it will be a blood bath for Colorado.

[Below C-Level]

1) Everything that I've read has placed the amount that the Rockies would pay at "slightly less than half" to "half" of Helton's remaining contract.

2) Per Cot's database, Helton's remaining contract breaks down thusly:

2007: $16.6M
2008: $16.6M
2009: $16.6M
2010: $16.6M
2011: $19.1M
2012: $23M club option OR
2012: $4.6M (buyout)

That's $90.1M guaranteed over 5 years, and that's assuming the buyout is exercised in 2012. If you want to keep talking about "6 years" then the number you need to use is $108.5M.

3) Assuming the Rockies pay "slightly less than half" of the $90.1M on his deal, that would be something in the neighborhood of $40M. That would leave the Red Sox on the hook for 5 years and $50.1 million, which is North of $10M per season. If they were to exercise the option for some bizarre reason, that would be 6 years and $68.5M, which is nearly $11.5M per.

The only way to get anything close to your $8.33M figure is to mistakenly use the 6 year structure (option year) but the $90.1 million figure. That's obviously not possible...unless they find a way to exercise the option at $0 instead of $23M.

4) The Red Sox know they aren't getting the 2000-2001 Todd Helton, so why would they, as you suggest, pay for that guy? If you were them, wouldn't you think it fair to pay for the guy you're actually getting in 2007? The guy with diminishing, albeit still valuable, skills who has seen his BA and SLG% decrease in each of the last 4 seasons? Why do you expect them to pay for the 2001 version of the guy who, in 2006, hit .266/.360/.421 in 271 at-bats away from Coors Field?

5) Please provide a single example of a trade in the history of baseball where a team has eaten $50+ million of a player's contract and forked over a half dozen of their top prospects. Just one. You say it's reasonable...so I'm asking you to cite a single instance of it ever occurring in the history of baseball.

[Below C-Level]

By way of comparison, Alex Rodriguez had 7 years and $179 million left on his deal when he went to the Yankees. That's an AAV of $25.6 million. At the time, ARod was a 28 year old shortstop with 2 gold gloves and an MVP to his credit.

The Rangers got an arbitration eligible Alfonso Soriano and a player to be named (who turned into Joaquin Arias)...and they got to eat $67M of his deal. Texas ended up paying Soriano about $13M in arbitration all told.

Todd Helton is 33 years old. He does not play a premium defensive position and has battled both injuries and declining production over the last few seasons.

Here's your proposed deal for Helton: Helton and $40M cash for Jacoby Ellsbury (CF), Clay Buchholz (RHP), Craig Hansen (RHP), Manny Delcarmen (RHP), Bryce Cox (RHP) and Michael Bowden (RHP)? None of whom are even arbitration eligible until 2010 at the earliest.

Yeah, that's reasonable...

[BigRapidsJackass]

Helton does have the Rockies by the short and curlies right now.

Look at the possible Angels deal: yeah, it looks like the Angels kind of backed off. But they are still the best fit all around. Except for one thing: Todd doesn't want to play there, and said he'll veto a trade.

So there goes your bargaining power if you're Dan O'Dowd. You can't say to Theo Epstein, "Well, Artie Moreno is giving us 2 of the top 40 prospects in baseball; what've you got for us? Helton apparently will only waive the no trade clause for the Red Sox or Braves, and the Braves don't seem to be in a buying mood.

And with this "resolve it quickly" business, if O'Dowd has been told to trade Helton he can't hold off and hope that Helton gets off to a good start to prove he's healthy.

So, yes, Todd is the problem now.

Actually, I'm getting a little sick and tired of his act. These players in decline always kind of bother me. There always a healthy back away from their 29 year old form, or a healthy colon, or a workout program, or a few more pounds to carry them through the season, or something. They can never admit they're in decline. They "just dream of playing meaningful games in September," or of a World Series ring, yet they let a chance to opt out of their guaranteed 90 million bucks with Monfortian-level b.s. like "I want to stay here and win here, as a Rockie."

Todd: No Hall of Fame if you stay in Colorado, since no one takes your Coors stats seriously (even if they really should). No World Championship in Colorado. No nothing except people like me *****ing at you for being as much the problem as the Monforts. That's your future here.

Happy Elk Hunting with Clintie Boy.

[Roxpert]

I wonder if Helton ever came to the Rockies asking for a trade to the Red Sox? After all, we were told as recently as last year that the only way the face of the team would be traded is if he came to ownership/DOD and asked for one. We may never know the answer to this, but I think ownership has been quietly having him shopped all along.

The Rockies lie more than your United States government!

[BigRapidsJackass]

Ken Rosenthal hits the nail on the head:

The Rockies must think Todd Helton is done.

Otherwise, it makes little sense for them to trade Helton at this late stage of the off-season.
If, as owner Charlie Monfort says, the Rockies are trying to win the N.L. West, how would trading Helton to the Red Sox help?

Any combination of veterans and prospects that the Rockies received would not equal a revived, productive Helton.

Whatever financial relief that the Rockies gained would not benefit them before the July 31 non-waiver deadline, if then.

And any justification for dumping the face of the franchise would be lost on an increasingly restless fan base.

If the Rockies wanted to trade Helton, 33, they should have done it at the winter meetings, when they could have reinvested their savings in other talent.

FOX Sports - MLB - Is moving Helton right for the Rockies?

And that sums it up. Really, what good is the $9 million in savings per year on Helton's contract? We saw this winter that that would have brought Ted Lilly. So you get Ted Lilly as your 4th starter, and you have to plug in John Mabry at 1B (or maybe Brad Hawpe, meaning that you're really banking on Jeff Baker). It doesn't make sense. When we saw the free agent market explode this winter, I assumed that Helton's contract would no longer be a major liability. His contract is no longer way out of line with prevailing salaries, so you either keep him or you get good value for him on the market.

But if you're the Rockies, you try to dump him, and you let the press (and other GMs) know that you're dealing from a position of weakness by saying that Helton won't waive his no-trade clause for any clubs but the Red Sox and Braves.

Rosenthal concludes:

One scout envisions Helton, a left-handed hitter, making like Wade Boggs,

going to the opposite field and peppering the Green Monster. Another scout envisions him being the final piece for a team that could win the World Series.

Is it sinking in yet?

Now is not the time to trade Todd Helton.

Unless the Rockies think — and they had better be sure — that Helton is done.

[Roxpert]

As you said, Jackass-O-Rox, Helton's contract is no longer a major liability given the explosion of the market this winter. What IS a liability, and left unsaid by Monfort, is the woefully inadequate PAYROLL that the Rockies are budgeting for this season and (by the looks of things) seasons beyond.

Monfort is going to get roasted for this move, just you watch. If it gets completed in the manner we are reading, every media outlet in town is going to be pushing the idea of the ownership group selling this team. Even TRACY RINGOLSBY might finally get ticked enough to actually write a column taking our ownership to task for once, and not the Blue Jays' GM.

This winter, the ownership has "shown their cards", and they have folded. They have shown Gen-R to be a fraudulent "slogan" only, assuming the JJ and Helton trades. Not that the JJ trade was a bad deal, but the message sent to all young Rockies players and their fans is that they are wanted because they are AFFORDABLE, not because of their superior talent.

It's an awful message to send to all of your constituencies, if you're Charlie Monfort. Does he even understand any of this? Does he even understand the business he owns?? All I can say is I can't figure him out.