Monfort on the fate of Clint, Dan, and Todd

[RMF]

C-Minus. I'm sorry I wasn't able to address your comments earlier. I didn't have the time to track down the actual contract #'s. My #'s were wrong. Off the top of my head I remembered the Helton contract to be 16.6 with 6 years remaining. That of course was not accurate.

However I have a hard time believing that the Sox will be paying more than 9 million per season for the Helton Contract. I think they'll end up assuming between 8.5-9.5 million. That's a great deal for them.

If we are really paying half the $$$ in cash I still don't think its unreasonable to ask for a ton of young players. (Note I still maintain I'd like to see some lower level guys included in the discussions) Based upon what IR and HF have stated I don't think its unreasonable to ask for those kinds of players.

The fact that these kinds of transactions don't generally happen doesn't mean the Rockies shouldn't ask for them. Step outside the box.

When you effectively hand the Red Sox a sure thing (By current Market standards) I don't think its unreasonable to ask for more higher risk/reward assets in return.

The A-Rod trade took place in a totally different environment. Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Lee just got insane contracts. Will either player be as valuable as Todd? The Manny/A-Rod to LA rumors had multiple talented prospects in the rumor mill.

Barry Zito is an average starter and thanks to FA he can now buy a country. That is the environment we are dealing with. The scarcity of this current market should help the Rockies but it won't because they're either incompent or they don't care about winning games.

If the Rockies picked up half of Todd's contract I'd expect a boatload in return. If you are going to prosecute everyone for weighing in before we have the details that is your perogative. I think most of us are blowing off steam. This reminds me of most of the Rockies worst deals all wrapped into one. Except, I think it has the potential to be much worse.

Count me in the crowd who believes this deal has a chance to be nearly historicly awful. When all the rumors you hear are onesided, it makes me cringe. I've yet to hear a reporter from either side saying we'll walk away from this with anything approaching fair value.

With all that Monfort has done, it wouldn't surprise me for the deal to break this way.

The Rockies will pay 42.75 million on Helton's contract + the 4.6 million dollar buyout. That will be over 50%. In return we'll get 2 slightly above average prospects and a meaningless MLB player. The deal will be a blood bath.

What does Charlie Monfort get? Well he doesn't get enough $$$ to lock up Holliday, Cook, or Atkins. He might not even get enough $$$ to extend Fuentes.

Charlie does get an additional 8 million per year for the ownership group. The fans get screwed, the city gets screwed, the team gets screwed.

The management of this organization has been a comedy of errors. I think this offseason has been solid. But this is the kind of deal that could reverse all of that and then some. If this deal doesn't make baseball sense you don't do it.

The fact that the Owners have worked out the financials before the GM's have finalized talent is terrifying. Shouldn't it be the other way around? This sounds like a dump. There are enough teams out there in need of bats, that you'd think the Rockies could broker a better deal than this.

I'd like to see this organization make baseball moves not Monfort moves.

[RMF]

According to the Cowboy this morning. Monfort appears to be driving this trade from the Rockies side. Scary. Sounds like Rockies are willing to give up 40 million. Theo has offered Lowell and Tavarez. Also another possible Boston Power struggle.

Great.

I just don't see the Rockies coming out ahead in this kind of deal. Why not just start the firesale now? Helton, Atkins, Fuentes, Cook, Holliday. Why not trade them all?

Rockies could cut their payroll down to about 35 million. Probably make more money and flood their minor leagues with talent. We could keep Iannetta and Tulowitzki in AAA and bring up a bunch of arbitration eligible players together down the road. We need young talent as part of a recipe for winning anyway.

Horrible franchises are so much fun to follow.

[Roxpert]

The franchise has made its worst mistakes when transactions have been "ownership-driven". The Hampton signing was one of those as the "blank check on the napkin" story attests. The rejection of past Astacio trades (for Wells or Soriano) due to ownership's concern about the team finishing .500 in 2000 is another example.

It's the classic tale of owners thinking they know baseball. THAT'S when franchises get into trouble. We MIGHT be able to cover up for this trade with a one-year stopgap in Lowell, and with Stewart's development in AAA this season, he could step in and become ROY in 2008.

But, as Heltonfan mused to me privately, it's astonishing to think that we got more value from the Hampton trade than it appears we'll get from the Walker and Helton trades ......COMBINED!

(sorry HF, I hope I didn't steal your thunder. I just thought that was a great observation.)

[BigRapidsJackass]

Why not just start the firesale now? Helton, Atkins, Fuentes, Cook, Holliday. Why not trade them all?

RMF, that's absolutely right. I don't understand this yes-we're-ready/no-we're not dithering. If you think we can compete for the playoffs this year or next, obviously you don't trade Helton for what's on the table. Every name thrown around in the trade talks so far would clearly make the Rox worse over the next couple years.

If you don't think this club will seriously compete this year or next, then you try to get a couple very good prospects. (Ringolsby says we're asking for "top" prospects. That's true only in that they're at the top of Boston's prospect lists; they're not "top" prospects overall, since the Red Sox currently have no such thing.) Let's say Buchholz and Ellsbury. The odds are pretty good that one OR the other becomes a solid regular/starter (probably not an impact player) within a couple years. So you've started to reload for '09.

And then for chrissakes start making the other obvious moves to gear up for '09-'11. Holliday has immense trade value, and he won't be around for the Rockies big years. Get your best deal for him now, again looking for top prospects with an ETA of '09. Same with Cook, at least by the trading deadline this year. Same with Fuentes, who probably will be at his peak value round about the end of spring training, when some contender's closer goes down. Sign Atkins to a longterm deal, taking him through '10. He and Francis can be the sole anchors left from this club.

And stick Iannetta and Tulo at the Springs for another year to stop that arbitration clock. Then you get Francis, Hirsh, Morales, Jimenez, and (Clay) Buchholz all in line for '09-'10, and all affordable. You get Atkins, Ellsbury/Fowler, Hawpe, Iannetta, Tulo, maybe a breakthrough or two from Baker, Koshansky, Herrera, Eric Young Jr, Wimberly or Seth Smith to put out on the field. And at least then you have a Marlins-esque strategy that is reasonably calculated to compete for the division from '09-'11.

Hey, wait a minute ... how do we know that that isn't the plan that's being put in action right now? Maybe that's why Hurdle is being made the sacrificial lamb (and isn't he perfectly suited to that role?), while O'Dowd skates through on another plan -- this one a 3-year plan -- to make everything gel at once?

The more I think about it, the more I think that's the case. (Unlike the Marlins, the Rockies would never be honest about their plans; Monfort will always keep up the fiction/b.s. of "we're going to win the NL West this year.") Here's the evidence:

-- The JJ trade started it all. Hirsh should be expected to peak by '09.

-- The bizarre and inexplicable cheapo acquisitions of Javy Lopez and John Mabry, and the lack of interest in dealing Clint Barmes (although in his case that lack of interest in acquiring him probably comes equally from 29 other teams). Lopez = Iannetta at AAA in '07. Barmes + Carroll + Matsui = Tulo at AAA in '07. Mabry (where else would you put him? Baker's out of options and Sullivan is necessary as a backup CFer) = Helton in Boston in '07.

-- The Helton trade follows. And I believe O'Dowd here; I don't think the Rox pull the trigger unless at least one (I hope 2) of the "top" prospects are included. They all should be reaching peak years by '09 -'10.

-- The money saved on Helton's contract will be used to lock up Atkins.

-- a Fuentes trade, and maybe a Cook trade, will follow, with more prospects (this time, better ones) with an expected peak of '09-'11.

-- a Holliday trade will come by the trading deadline of '08; if Holliday keeps chugging along, he may bring a king's ransom for 1.3 years of his relatively cheap services to a contender; expect very advanced prospects who are MLB ready by '09 (kind of like Hanley Ramirez or Anibal Sanchez last year).

Y'know what? I could live with such a plan. But I can't live with no plan, or at least no "announced plan," in which it looks like O'Dowd and Monfort really are bumbling idiots (Hurdle is a bumbling idiot beyond doubt, regardless of what he does here).

How will we know if this is the "secret 2.5-year plan" in action? You'll know if at least 2 of these 3 things happen by April:

1. Helton is traded, and we do hold out for a "top" prospect or two in return.
2. Atkins is signed to a longterm deal.
3. Iannetta and/or Tulo are sent down to AAA to start the year.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Y'know what? I could live with such a plan. But I can't live with no plan, or at least no "announced plan," in which it looks like O'Dowd and Monfort really are bumbling idiots (Hurdle is a bumbling idiot beyond doubt, regardless of what he does here).

Maybe you could live with such a plan, but it would be a travesty to my way of thinking. All along, we fans were told the youth movement was coming in a couple waves, and all indications were that our big breakout year would be 2008, if not 2007. Supposedly, major PROGRESS in that plan was made last season, as our homegrown kids developed (Holliday, Atkins, Francis, Cook) into proven major-leaguers. We are STILL being told by Charlie Monfort that this is the year we should win, or at least finish .500.

Thus, if the real plan is to DEFER our effort to compete for the division until 2009-2011, then there is no reason to ever believe in the efficacy of what the franchise is doing or saying.....ever again. They cannot be in a "constant rebuilding mode"......it just gets this team nowhere, but chases fans away in droves. We need to win, and sooner than 2009.

Personally, I think the more likely plan is to save some bucks, and then sell the franchise. Anything Monfort can do to remove long-term liabilities off the franchise balance sheet improves the marketability of the franchise......to a new owner (not to the fans, obviously). That may really be what is going through Charlie's mind right now, though none of us have any real way of knowing what (if anything) does go through his mind!

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by RMF

According to the Cowboy this morning. Monfort appears to be driving this trade from the Rockies side.

I don't view it as positive for DOD's future, as well as the horrible team record that will likely result in their make-or-break report card season. Of course ownership (not just here but most everywhere) does tend to get more involved in franchise player discussions that impact all aspects of the business and bottomline. It's a monumental decision for the franchise that hopefully they won't botch - as they seem to be trying their best to do unsurprisingly.

I talked to DOD one and only one time, and at that time (2 years ago or something) he didn't sound like he had any problem dealing Helton, assuming they could find a deal to balance contracts, etc. He's always been fine with that (he'll wheel and deal with whoever), but it's the ownership stances that has changed and driving this shift. Hopefully they don't just go with how things balance out in the pocketbook, and at the very least if they do something for mostly money reasons they immediately put that money into action otherwise.

It is all a horrible example again of how troubled this organization is, and how slow they are to steer the ship in the right directions. It is almost like a rock rolling down the hill. They needed to get some momentum going, and now that they do it seems like it's full speed ahead no matter how bad the crash will be at the bottom.

Hopefully the Rox are not going to just take it from the Sox. More recent reports sound like we are going to be more demanding for value in return than is being offered. We can only hope.

I do like the change within the fan base, though. I would have traded Helton long ago also, but I disliked the bad-mouthing of Todd as an albotross that we needed to get rid of any how and any way. Life is better for a Rockies fan when Todd is wanted and getting fair credit for his value (even if moved elsewhere for a real chance to contend that he deserves). And it wouldn't be life for a Rox fan without bone-head decisions to discuss.

Hopefully they hang onto Todd if this is the best they can do, although I do worry about this public trade negotiation and how that impacts the previous rock-solid relationship and respect. I think he'll bounce back nicely next year, though, whether for us or Boston. Helton is probably going to control the situation with his no-trade (as he should) to limit the choices and timing of a deal, but playing well next year will at least raise the price required to move him from our side. It is way too low currently, but you can't blame the Sox for trying to force us into yet another bad decision. They would be fools not to try to play us for fools and get Helton for as little as possible.

[RMF]

I just want to put these Monfort "winning the division" comments into perspective. Since 2000 the closest the Rockies have come to winning the division was last season. We finished 12 games out last year with everybody and their dog having a career year (Minus Helton) Some of our divisional opponents were also making transitions last season.

During those 7 years we've finished an average of 19.5 games out. How anyone could keep their jobs after that kind of record is amazing. The trend is certainly positive. But if the high water mark for this team is going to be playing .500 ball that is pretty sad.

The baseball people can only do so much period. As Roxpert has correctly stated 252,000 times, the problem is how much money Monfort's willing to spend. Oakland and Minnesota each spent millions more on onfield talent than Colorado in 06.

No MLB franchise can build from within in perpituity. It can't be done. To suggest that Oakland or Minnesota does this is ridiculous. We have a good amount of talent and some nice prospects. The window to push this thing over the top should have been 06-10. We should've spent the $$$. We might have even won a division.

To suggest we'll win the division this season or that a Helton trade will somehow make us better on the field now or in the near future seems to me a complete and total lie.

We might have won the division last season with 20 million extra. We might win the division this season with 20 million extra. The dollars are spent and the Colorado Rockies are probably looking at another 4th-5th place finish.

You don't have to crunch #'s or build fancy models or even punctuate sentences correctly to realize that finishing nearly 20 games out per year for the better part of a decade is horrible, inept, disingenious and probably should be illegal.

[Roxpert]

I like the rant, RMF, but are you sure I haven't mentioned the need to raise our woeful payroll 253,000 times?!? LOL, I guess I have stuck to that theme for a while.

Another way to view the Rockies' ineptitude (besides GB in the NL West) is to look at how many "meaningful games in September" we have played in recent years. Going back to 1998, a total of NINE seasons, the answer would be ZERO, ZILCH, NADA! We haven't played any meaningful games in September with playoff implications for us since 1997.

This September will be the 10-year anniversary of the last time we were nominally in a playoff race that late in the season. It's not illegal, but it certainly isn't healthy for a franchise that sets budgets based on revenues that a perennial non-contender (going on its 10th straight season) can generate.

The Monforts should be ashamed. Simply ashamed.

[Heltonfan]

No MLB franchise can build from within in perpetuity. It can't be done. To suggest that Oakland or Minnesota does this is ridiculous.

Oakland, yes. Beane has made his share of significant veteran acquisitions. Minnesota, though? They've basically built entirely from within. But of course, they've had the benefit of:
- A Rule 5 pick that turned out 1000 times better than anyone had the right to expect
- A #1 overall draft pick
- The most ridiculously lopsided trade in recent memory

Those are three incredibly rare events, the sort of thing that no team can be expected to duplicate. And even with those three miracles (and, as you mentioned, a payroll substantially higher than ours, despite their small market, miserable excuse for a stadium, and mediocre-at-best attendance), the Twins are an 87-win team year in and year out; they can make the playoffs with some regularity, but they're never one of the top two teams in the league.

The bottom line is that, regardless of the size of the payroll, a team needs star players in order to make the playoffs. Todd Helton is (or, at least, is projected to be) a star player. Garrett Atkins is not. Holliday is not. Cook and Francis are not. Tulowitzki and Iannetta have an outside shot to be stars, but more likely, they'll be merely above average. Now, sure, if everyone pans out, and we have a roster full of .285 ABR hitters and 3.75 ERC pitchers, we'll have ourselves a hell of a ballclub. But that's not the way things work. We need to have the security of a superstar or two so that we can survive the failure of a few of the youngsters. And if we're not lucky enough to find the next Johan Santana, we're going to have to spend some money to get that superstar.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

We need to have the security of a superstar or two so that we can survive the failure of a few of the youngsters. And if we're not lucky enough to find the next Johan Santana, we're going to have to spend some money to get that superstar.

And therein lies the rub. The ownership group appears to have made a decision to never again sign a superstar to a free agent contract. In fact, it hasn't really ever happened since Walker was signed in 1995. Yes, we signed a very good pitcher, Mike Hampton, to a "superstar contract", along with Denny Neagle, but those events were what fundamentally altered the way this ownership group does business.

Will we ever succeed with these owners? I think that answer depends on whether we will ever again sign an impact player on the free agent market. Will that happen? I highly doubt it, and any savings from Helton's trade will go toward keeping internal talent, and not seeking star talent from outside.

We are most likely non-contenders until the Monforts change their ways, or the franchise changes ownership.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

Will we ever succeed with these owners? I think that answer depends on whether we will ever again sign an impact player on the free agent market.

I couldn't disagree more. EVERY superstar is homegrown SOMEWHERE. He comes from some team's system. The Rox need to get some impact talent, but if their next superstar comes from our system (compared to someone else's system) that's all the better and a significant advantage in so many ways.

Absolutely if your system can't deliver any impact talent you need to get it elsewhere, but I'm not going to assume that we can't when that seems entirely possible with our talent stock. In either event I agree to some degree that you need to supplement your team via most avenues to acquire talent. Certainly they should have probably invested more in the supporting cast for holes they can't all fill internally this year if they REALLY want to contend seriously, but I can't support any plan that is primarily centered around spending sprees or everything rides on a huge free agent signing to save the world. They are on the right track generally in terms of wanting to build internally like the Twins for your organizational core. That rightfully should be the priority over who should we spend $100 million on next. It needs to be the other way around with the focus internally and then spending wisely when needed to fill in the gaps.

HF, you don't give them enough credit there by citing their instances of "luck". They have been doing it this way a long time even before some of those instances. Not everyone is going to win all the time and it does take some time to reload, but I'll take their long-term track record that has seen a couple different championship runs over the years. Another familiar example is the Cleveland rebuild while DOD was there and built primarily around investing in young players unlike teams had previously and letting them develop together under long-term deals for youthful talent.

Our next superstar very well may be within the organization already. To their credit (somewhat) I think the Rox have shown the ability to deliver talent, and even some impact talent potentially. They CAN do that I believe. They get credit for that, but on the other hand most of that is due to suking so badly that they have gotten a lot of top 5-15 picks in recent seasons. Give most any team a decade of top 10 picks, and you're going to get some impact prospects in the system and hope there. Even the D-Rays have some of the best prospects in the game close to reaching the majors.

It isn't about X dollars = X wins. The game is still on the field, not in the pocketbook and in many cases talent does not equal dollars in baseball because of the system that supremely rewards teams with young talent. Because of that, it makes all the sense in the world to build toward those advantages and put something long-lasting together instead of relying on spending sprees and market conditions every off-season to buy a new roster. Build internally and soundly for the long-term, and when you think you have a shot to make a run for it you should supplement your holes with proven talent to get you over the edge.

[Roxpert]

Same 'ol, same 'ol....

Originally Posted by hiaspire

I couldn't disagree more. EVERY superstar is homegrown SOMEWHERE.

Certainly they should have probably invested more in the supporting cast for holes they can't all fill internally this year if they REALLY want to contend seriously, but I can't support any plan that is primarily centered around spending sprees or everything rides on a huge free agent signing to save the world.

WHO is advocacting "spending sprees" or riding "everything" on a huge F.A. signing? It think that misrepresents what HF and I just wrote. Rather, the recommendation is to spend like a competitive franchise, say $80 million, and fill holes with impact free agents, even superstars, something that this ownership group has grown allergic toward doing.

What we advocate is hardly a reckless or radical plan. Most MLB teams are doing more spending than we are, in case you haven't checked lately.

It isn't about X dollars = X wins.

Why do you simplify things like this? Do you think we are simple-minded, "black and white" fans? No one here would even imagine that there's anything close to a 1.00 correlation coefficient in the relationship of incremental dollars spent and incremental wins. That does not excuse a franchise that's in permanent rebuilding mode from not spending money in an EFFORT to compete (whether $80 million in payroll = competitive team depends on many factors, but that's a good starting point).

The game is still on the field, not in the pocketbook

No sh**, Sherlock. You think we just arrived on the scene?

it makes all the sense in the world to build toward those advantages and put something long-lasting together instead of relying on spending sprees and market conditions every off-season to buy a new roster.

Again, who is talking about spending sprees, and who has recommended anything like that "every off-season"? You have WAAAY overblown what either HF or I have said.

[hiaspire]

Same 'ol, same 'ol is right...

It is always about MORE SPENDING. X more dollars needed. $80 million required. Money is the key to focus on, not the actual talent no matter the price tag.

No, in this game talent does not always equal money. The system has built in advantages toward young talent that is DRASTICALLY under-valued. You get high performance on the field that is at significantly reduced rates compared to the market prices. That is a hell of an advantage and it makes all the sense in the world to take advantage of that, especially if you have a stock of top 15 picks in your farm system coming up.

Forget needing X amount of dollars. Why always the focus on some required number?? The number alone is so extremely meaningless. Give me 3 ROY contenders over 3 over-priced FA signings any day, and the cost there is utterly meaningless other than the tremendous savings it illustrates doing it that way instead.

[Heltonfan]

HiAspire, I certainly didn't mean to characterize the Twins as being merely lucky. The Pierzynski trade was, at the time it happened, seen as highway robbery by almost everyone. But I don't think anyone thought it would turn out quite this well (that is, nobody expected Nathan to be the most dominant reliever in all of MLB, and nobody expected Liriano to dominate as quickly as he has). Ditto for Santana. The Twins deserve a lot of credit there, but there's no way that they, or anyone else, thought they were getting the best pitcher in baseball.

Anyway, since we acknowledge this tangent as same ol', same ol', let's all resist the temptation to drag it out...

[TheIncredibleRox]

You guys are splitting hairs here, and this has been a nice thread until now. I think we can both agree on two things;

1. The Rockies, with limited financial resources, need to be as efficient as possible with regard to evaluating and acquiring talent. They have not been.

2. Increasing the amount of money invested into player payroll and development would certainly provide more breathing room/margin for error, and give us a wider window towards competition. Not just arbitrarily and recklessly, of course, but in the vein of #1 (as much as possible).

Everybody good?