Monfort on the fate of Clint, Dan, and Todd

[BigRapidsJackass]

From today's Denver Post:

Rockies owner Charlie Monfort wants - at minimum - a .500 record this season. It has long been assumed that if the Rockies don't post a winning season, general manager Dan O'Dowd and manager Clint Hurdle could lose their jobs.

Monfort said Monday, however, that their futures aren't necessarily linked. He also indicated the organization remains open to trading Todd Helton if it makes the team better.

"I see Dan and Clint's situation as totally different," Monfort said. "It's just that their contracts are coming up at the same time, and they've worked together so people think they are hooked at the hip. That's not true."

Reading between the lines, it sure sounds to me like Monfort's patience with Hurdle is likely to run out sooner. In fact, you don't even need to read between the lines; it's right there:

we need to show progress. You talk to anyone in the organization and they will tell you we should have had a winning record last year.

Meanwhile, Monfort seems to have bought into O'Dowd's plan, and I would guess that the thinking on Helton pretty much mirrors O'Dowd's:

As for Helton, ownership has long resisted the idea of trading the team's biggest name player. As recently as last September, Colorado ownership spoke of Helton retiring as a Rockie. But since then, there's been a philosophical shift. Monfort conceded it's "not wise" to allocate so much money to one player. Helton will make $16.6 million of the team's projected $55 million payroll this season.

I view this as a good development. Nice work by Troy Renck actually getting some insight out of the Rockies beat this winter.

Meanwhile, Hall of Famer Tracy Ringolsby would rather focus on getting even with Toronto GM JP Ricciardi, who apparently mortally offended him at some point. Here he is last week:

Former Seattle and Cleveland general manager Dan O'Brien once explained that the problem with new owners and first-time general managers is "they all want to reinvent the wheel. It takes a few years and a lot of headaches before they realize that round is still the best shape."

When J.P. Ricciardi became general manager of the Toronto Blue Jays in the fall of 2001, he spoke of revamping the team's farm system and scouting staff because he wanted to have a more productive organization, even though the Jays had produced more big league players than any in history.

Wonder if Ricciardi has accepted the round-tire theory yet? Of all the players on 40-man rosters this offseason, Toronto initially signed 54 of them, the most of any franchise. Since 2000, however, the Jays had signed only 20, which was tied with Florida and the Chicago White Sox for ninth.

Folks who came over from the old board may remember that Ringolsby finds room for a gratuitous slap at Ricciardi every couple months. Yet Renck gets the scoop of the winter so far. I guess that's called resting on your laurels.

[Roxpert]

Too bad we lost Tracy on this new board. It was actually nice to have him around, though briefly, on the scout board. In fact, judging by lack of postings, I think we are missing lots of people on this new site (though do we really miss Roxtank?).

I think Hurdle will be gone by the All-Star break or shortly thereafter if we have a losing record in the 1st half. Also, I think Helton will not be a member of the Rockies one year from now, and maybe not even one month from now. Monfort is sending a message, in my view, with that article to his fanbase to be prepared for a Helton transaction. The handwriting is on the wall!

[hiaspire]

Too bad we lost Tracy on this new board - I think we should have probably lost Tracy just for the treatment alone, but to each their own.

They are almost setting themselves up for failure with some of these statements. They do seem more open to trading Helton "if it will help the club", but more than likely the deal you are going to get WON'T help you this year as much as Helton would, but WILL hopefully help you in the long-run (salary relief as well as a couple very good AA prospects, etc.) So they'll give DOD a pat on the back for a good Helton trade, then fire Hurdle for losing more games without one of his best players and the return you got for him being in the minor leagues.

Recent statements do seem to be leaning toward putting more heat on Hurdle to win on the field, and separating DOD from his hip and those results. I'm not buying it, though, as history otherwise has them leaning more towards increasing Hurdle's power (and demanding that new managers keep him on previously) while diminishing DOD's authority, staff, and wheelin' ways that resulted in the lack of continuity they criticized him for publically. I don't think it goes 180 in the other direction, but that may depend upon what happens on the field and if they feel they need to do something -- where they manager usually takes the fall more times than not. Or maybe with their recent emphasis on faith and character, DOD has gone to church more than Hurdle (or championing that cause more enthusiastically) and is winning the owners over as a guy who will carry out their mission.

Speaking of religion (and since the Colts come up here sometimes due to poster geography), did anybody catch the statements made by the guys in charge at Indy? Rox take a lot of heat for religion here, but I don't think they are much different than many other examples in sports where players score touchdowns and thank God, or managers talk about team character.


Back to Helton... The other Troy painted a scenario on talk radio this morning about a win/win situation where Todd comes back healthy, has a fantastic season as he's so determined to do now, improves his value and demand, and gets moved to a world series contender. I have to disagree. If Todd really makes it back with a strong season, I don't think Rockies management will deal the returning hero regaining his form to applauding fans. Then they are right back to the same reasons they wouldn't deal the popular player before.

What has made trading Helton a possibility now is that more fans are frustrated, and they wouldn't take as much of a PR hit for moving him while he's in a down swing. If/when he gets going again, I couldn't see him being shipped out except for if the team totally went into the tank otherwise and it was mutually agreed it was best for everyone for Helton to jump the sinking ship. Either that, or some desperate team gives the Rox an offer they couldn't refuse (say a star 1B gets hurt on a playoff team) and that team also happens to be one of the few situations Helton may waive his no-trade for. That's possible where it might not have been before because management has crossed that line to where they can imagine a team without their star player like they haven't before.

If things go fairly well for the team and Helton looks to be back on track a bit, I don't think he's going anywhere. Same might be true for the dynamic duo leading the franchise in that case, where the owners have stuck with them through some horrendous baseball and I couldn't see them ditching H/DOD when things are looking better and hope is emerging. If it was me, I would have traded Helton and fired both of those guys years ago, but under today's reality I don't think the huge shake-up is coming that is being hinted at. At least not unless things get disasterously bad next year, which I don't expect. They are just applying some pressure, appeasing some fans looking for more accountability, and setting the stage just in case things don't go anywhere near as hoped on the field.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Hi-- interesting point that didn't hit me at first, but you're absolutely right. These comments seem to be a dramatic reversal of what seemed like a buildup over the last 18 months of increasing power for Hurdle. I like the fact that some authority has (seemingly) been shifted from his hands, however this offseason (which isn't over) will also be O'Dowd's litmus test to see how much he deserves it.

So in that sense, they both seem to be somewhat on the hook.

EDIT: And as I've somewhat stated before, this offseason is hard for me to gauge at this point. Nearly all of the moves made, when evaluated individually, seem to oscilate between perfectly acceptable and in some cases, downright smart.

However, when you step back and look at the big picture, it seems like we just collected a proverbial flock of 4th and 5th starters. Not a bad commodity to have, and indeed with so much competition there exists a chance that somebody comes out and pitches above their head (as in, a solid/strong #3). I'm just not sure it was wise to throw nearly all of our eggs into that basket.

As for Tavares, as things currently stand I view that as an essentially lateral move from Sullivan, although with youth (and some other factors I've mentioned) in his favor, there's potential upside. But he's not going to blow him out of the water.

And with as well as our rotation performed last year, I don't feel like we've really done anything terribly meaningful this offseason. Again though, it's tough for me to say that since nearly every move seems fine on an individual level.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

I don't feel like we've really done anything terribly meaningful this offseason. Again though, it's tough for me to say that since nearly every move seems fine on an individual level.

It's true that the Rockies haven't made any egregiously poor moves this offseason (though couldn't they have held onto Tsao?). It's also true that each individual move has seemed well thought out, even if they were blindsided by Fogg's agent.

The problem is that the moves, collectively, are not enough to vault the Rockies to a contender-status in the NL West, not when the Dodgers have perceptibly improved, and San Diego held its own. Also, the D-Backs seem more intriguing with the reacquisition of Johnson and the signing of Davis. The Giants are, well, the same OLD story!

So while the moves aren't opening DOD up to much criticism, they aren't really enough to matter for 2007. Such is life for a franchise that imposes a $55 million salary cap on themselves, when the league is moving toward an $80 million median payroll. Only so much can be done on shoestring budgets.

BUT.......and this is a big but, this offseason isn't over. I have the sense that one major surprise may be in store, and don't ask me why. So I'll suspend judgment on the 2007 Rockies until the day before Opening Day.

[BigRapidsJackass]

IR said:

And as I've somewhat stated before, this offseason is hard for me to gauge at this point. Nearly all of the moves made, when evaluated individually, seem to oscilate between perfectly acceptable and in some cases, downright smart.

However, when you step back and look at the big picture, it seems like we just collected a proverbial flock of 4th and 5th starters. Not a bad commodity to have, and indeed with so much competition there exists a chance that somebody comes out and pitches above their head (as in, a solid/strong #3). I'm just not sure it was wise to throw nearly all of our eggs into that basket.

As for Tavares, as things currently stand I view that as an essentially lateral move from Sullivan,

Which brings me to my question. (This is the wrong thread for it, but since the thought started here, I guess it belongs.) How do these moves look from a sabermetric perspective? By that I mean net projected wins added/lost. I'll use the PECOTA WARP-1 (wins above replacement player) projections, which are fine for MLB veterans, not so good (as we've seen) for minor leaguers. Other measures may be better (like BP's WXRL?) but the difference should be minimal.

Starting Pitching:

We started with Jennings (4.4) + Cook (4.0) + Francis (4.0) + Kim (3.6) + Fogg (2.5) = 18.5.

O'Dowd basically substituted Rodrigo Lopez for JJ (saving between half a million and a million bucks in the process), and ended with Cook, Francis, Kim, Fogg, and Lopez (3.5) = 17.6. By the way, Hirsh (2.7) or Buchholz (1.6) may take the place of Fogg and/or Kim; adjust accordingly.

NET CHANGE: -1 win. I'm o.k. with this, although I think I would've sent Fogg packing. Still, as HF notes, even if Fogg wins his arbitration, someone may pick him up in exchange for essentially nothing, so we're probably not stuck with him.

Bullpen:

Add LaTroy Hawkins (1.0) and probably Dan Kolb (0.6) in exchange for Mesa (0.7) and King (0.4), and probably save about a million bucks in the process. Of course, this may be a bit unfair, since one thing O'Dowd did accomplish was some more flexibility in the pitching staff. Buchholz could probably slide into the pen and be effective -- BP had his component ERA right at 5.00 last year as a starter, and if going to the pen typically knocks off about .8, then he's a better option than the Kolbs of the world.

NET CHANGE: + .5 win. I'm o.k. with this, too, in that if you're going to buy a load of horses**t, it's better to get it slightly cheaper by the bushel.

Position players:

Add/keep Javy Lopez (1.3) + Kaz Matsui (1.7) + Willy Tavares (3.4), subtract JD Closser (2.0), Luis Gonzalez (0.9), and Ryan Spilborghs (2.0) OR Choo Freeman (0.8).

NET CHANGE: + 1.5 win, assuming Choo gets the backup CF job; + 2.7 wins assuming Spilborghs gets the job. [Memo to Dan O'Dowd: the single greatest impact move you can make this offseason is dumping Choo Freeman!] In the abstract, I'm o.k. with this. On paper the club is a little bit better at the 8 positions. But only a little bit.

OVERALL CHANGE: + 1 win. Whoop-de-doo.

Here's an interesting exercise: we've all got our own favorites out there. I was all for Dave Roberts, Adam Kennedy, and Eric Gagne. Here's how that would've played out:

The Jackass's Solution: JJ trade happens. (Therefore, no Dave Roberts, since there's not room for him and Willy T.) Instead of signing Hawkins ($3.5)and trading for Lopez ($4.5) and signing KazMat ($1.5) and offering Fogg arbitration ($3 million at best), we sign Kennedy and Gagne.

Starters: Cook, Francis, Kim, Hirsh, Buchholz = -1.5 wins as compared to '06.

Relievers: Gagne (5.6) and Kolb type instead of Hawkins/Kolb: +5 wins as compared to '06. [Yeah, that's assuming Gagne throws 56 innings; he might throw zero. But it's the kind of gamble that strikes me as worth it, since the chance of winning 86 games and competing is a lot more valuable than the risk of winning 73 instead of 77 games. Who cares whether you win 73 or 77?] If Gagne pitches a lot and hits his incentives, everyone's happy and O'Dowd hasn't spent any more than he did on the Hawkins/Fogg/Lopez types. If Gagne's hurt, he doesn't hit his incentives and O'Dowd has actually saved money; he can go out and trade for someone during the season. And Gagne only got a 1-year deal, so you're not stuck with him forever.

Position players: sign Adam Kennedy (3.5) instead of KazMat and spend an extra couple million bucks. Keep Closser instead of Javy Lopez (I'll call that a wash). Net change: + 2 wins over '06.

Total Net Change if the Jackass is in charge: +5.5 wins. Since you're starting with a Pythagorean .500 club, that means that if Gagne stays healthy (by the way, that means Fuentes falls into his best role, or is traded if the right deal emerges) you might just hit 86-87 wins. And you might just sneak into the playoffs. Worst case? You win 75.

That's my main complaint. O'Dowd was so ultra conservative that he's virtually guaranteed that the absolute best-case scenario is about 82 wins. He thinks the absolute downside is about 79 wins, and he thinks that's good. It's called "saving your job." Monfort said .500 is the standard by which all will be judged (it's in Armstrong's Post article today), and damned if O'Dowd isn't playing it to hit .500. No risks = no getting fired.

I think O'Dowd's wrong. Monfort may care if this team win 79 as opposed to 72. I don't, and I don't think most fans do either. And I think he's wrong in thinking that guys like Rodrigo Lopez and LaTroy Hawkins are reasonably sure things. I personally think Hawkins is finished (BP's PECOTA card has his "Collapse Rate" at 61% -- so far, that's the highest I've seen, and it is no doubt a symptom of that rapid and scary drop in his K rate). Lopez is 31 and the best you can say about him is that he had some bad luck; the worst you can say about him is that he's in a steep decline. So by playing it conservatively O'Dowd may very well wind up with a 73 win team and no job next year.

They'll never call him Gamblin' Dan ... kind of reminds me of my least favorite coach of all time, Pat Dye of Auburn (football). He earned the nickname "Tie Dye" by inexplicably kicking a field goal to tie the score ... in a bowl game ... with no overtime ... with nothing at stake.

[Heltonfan]

Relievers: Gagne (5.6) and Kolb type instead of Hawkins/Kolb: +5 wins as compared to '06.

This is where WARP fails us (and WXRL would as well). A healthy Gagne is not worth 1 win for every 10 innings he pitches. Not even close. In order to determine a reliever's value, you have to consider the "chaining" factor; that is, sans Gagne, we're giving an extra 50-60 innings to a replacement-level pitcher, but that pitcher isn't assuming the closer's role. Fuentes is. After factoring this in, 80 innings of Gagne is worth right around 3 wins, so those 56 innings would be worth a little more than two wins. Also:

Since you're starting with a Pythagorean .500 club, that means that if Gagne stays healthy (by the way, that means Fuentes falls into his best role, or is traded if the right deal emerges) you might just hit 86-87 wins.

You're not starting with a .500 club. You're starting with a club that played .500 ball last year, thanks to a bunch of players who don't project to do as well in '07 as they did in '06. Using last year as a baseline is just wrong. The baseline should be more like 75 wins, meaning that O'Dowd's moves have brought us up to 76 and your moves would have brought us up to 77 (after properly valuing Gagne).

EDIT: Just checked with my team projections spreadsheet... by my numbers, your moves would be a 5-run improvement over what has actually happened (assuming 56 innings for Gagne).

[BigRapidsJackass]

Of course, that's correct, HF.

And the other error in my analysis: Tavares should get all the PAs that went to Choo, but he'll also get a bunch that went to Sullivan (and some that went to Spilborghs, too). And while the difference between Tavares and Choo is big, the difference between Tavares and Sullivan isn't.

As for Gagne and the "chaining" effect: that's correct, but again (living in the real Hurdle/O'Dowd world) we have to assume that Gagne would get the innings and the important game situations that will instead be going to Hawkins. To me, Hawkins is the ultimate in poor signings: not only could you have signed someone better for relatively little more money; you also push Corpas (who almost certainly will be much better) into a lesser role. Gagne, of course, would have the opposite effect -- he probably would've pushed Fuentes into the highest leverage situations.

[Heltonfan]

You also push Corpas (who almost certainly will be much better) into a lesser role.

Whoa. That's a lot of confidence to have in a guy who was putting up blah strikeout rates in A-ball as recently as 2005. I like Corpas quite a bit, but using reasonable MLEs, there's just no way that he projects to be significantly above average this year. And Hawkins looks like the very definition of a league-average reliever.

The difference between having Hawkins pitch the seventh and Corpas the eighth and doing it the other way around is, at the absolute high-end estimate, 1 run per year. You'd be hard-pressed to find something less relevant.

[BigRapidsJackass]

HF, you have far more confidence in Hawkins than I.

[Heltonfan]

What is it about Hawkins specifically that makes you think that the multi-year weighted average projection model is inappropriate? In other words, is this just another example of your inclination to throw elderly players under the bus at the first sign of decline (Jose Valentin says hi ), or is there something special about Hawkins that screams "collapse"? It's not as though the projection model is incapable of handling something as basic as a pitcher with a declining K rate...

And even if Hawkins is replacement level, it doesn't change the point about the irrelevance of reducing Corpas to a lesser role. That's why I gave the high-end estimate.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Why am I so down on Hawkins? Well, that K rate declined by 41 % from 2005 to 2006. We'd want to look at pitchers who are 33 years old or more who suffered a similar decline in K rate, and see what percentage of them were able to rebound. I haven't done this, but that's part of what PECOTA's similarity scores do. And PECOTA thinks there's a 61% chance that his performance will decline by at least 25% relative to his 3-year baseline. I'd love to see the PECOTA player comp formula, so I'm a bit wary of it. But I imagine that drastic decline in K rate is the major factor, and I'm guessing that it bodes very ill indeed. I hope I'm wrong.

And nice memory on that Jose Valentin thing. I did make fun of the Dodgers for thinking he could be their regular 3B in 2005. And then he did post that .591 OPS.

Maybe LaTroy will have a great 2008 for the Mets.

[Heltonfan]

And PECOTA's projection for Hawkins, which factors that 61% collapse rate in, is only .27 higher than mine. That's 2 runs per year. It's not as if PECOTA is expecting some sort of catastrophe.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Look, Hawkins may in fact turn out to be an average reliever.

But let's say instead of Hawkins you sign a Dan Kolb type (.6 WARP) to a minor league contract, kind of like what Tom Martin got last year. [I think these guys are the very definition of "freely available talent" -- there's always a surplus of these guys around to cherry pick, and while they don't make the minimum, they don't make more than double the minimum.] To make the numbers easy, let's say that's .5 million bucks. So the marginal value of the extra $3 million is .4 win. Let's make the math easy again and call it half a win.

In other words, in the real world aren't you really paying 3 million bucks for half a win? 6 million bucks for a win?

Doesn't that strike you as a rather extravagant expenditure for such a penny-pinching club? Don't you think there's better ways of using the money?

[Heltonfan]

Doesn't that strike you as a rather extravagant expenditure for such a penny-pinching club?

Yes.

Don't you think there's better ways of using the money?

No.

Adam Kennedy? Not an upgrade on Carroll, and would have required a multi-year deal. Mike Stanton? Aaron Fultz? Alan Embree? Ramon Ortiz? Chris Reitsma? There are no real assets in Hawkins' price range. The only meaningfully better way to spend the money would have been to forsake Hawkins and the Lopezes and go after a real impact player, as you've advocated.