Helton Trade Talks Confirmed.....

Roxpert · 01-27-2007, 07:44 PM

Major League Baseball : News : Major League Baseball News

Charlie Monfort is openly acknowledging that they are exploring a trade of Helton to the Red Sox. Funny, he says the reason is that they think they can win the division THIS YEAR, and so they want to be careful in any trade of Helton that it doesn't harm their chances.

Heltonfan, this raises a question. If Monfort is really wanting to help our chances in 2007, have any of the trade scenarios we've read today helped that cause? Please run a pro-forma projection of estimated wins with the following trades in mind, if you have time:

Helton for Clement, Hansen, and Ellsbury.

Helton for Lowell, Tavarez, and Hansen.

Helton for Hansen, Delcarmen, and Ellsbury.

Any other combination you'd like to try.

As I recall, you have the Rockies projected at about 76 wins. How does that change if they make any of the above trades? Of course, you'd have to incorporate some assumptions about who would gain playing time freed up by Helton's departure. I'm guessing that you won't find a scenario in which the Rockies would win more games than you already projected, and the falloff in wins could be significant (maybe up to 5 games?). Thanks in advance for doing this.

RMF · 01-27-2007, 08:06 PM

Why did we trade Shealy? Not that he can't be replaced but I seriously doubt that Jeremy Affeldt is the difference between winning the division. I just don't understand. It seems to me like the individual seasons and offseason actions make sense. They seem to have themes, generally involving cost cutting.

However, when you add up those individual seasons into half a decade the net moves don't always seem to make sense. Last year Helton is untradeable this year he must go. Last year they can't get "fair market" for Shealy and now he's not around to fill the hole at 1B.

We've no word that Ian Stewart or Koshansky are close to ready. I guess Baker could be the 1B but this is just kind of strange. This franchise needs a new face. Any guess who that might me?

I don't see us coming ahead in a Boston trade this year. I can see some deals for prospects that would be nice HF already mentioned some, but I have a very hard time believing this move brings us closer to winning the division this season.

This is the kind of move that makes me think O'dowd's job is safe and Hurdle is out. Funny that Monfort would buy into O'dowd's abilities and realize Clint needs to go this late in the game.

This organization is strange. Apodaca will probably end up as the new manager.

RMF · 01-27-2007, 08:18 PM

Reading that article and seeing Charlie Monfort seemingly contradict himself every other paragraph is almost amusing.

Let me paraphrase some comments.

Quote:

The contract is fair, but we need flexibility

(They'll almost certainly have to pick up $$$)

Quote:

We're trading our best player but we'll be better, probably winning the division. However, Dan O'dowd is out of town so I'm not clear on the details. I've heard something about Koshansky.

Whatever, Charlie Monfort. Bring on 2012 already.

We're going to end up eating between 20-30 million. I'm betting on about 26 million.

Rankal · 01-27-2007, 08:28 PM

As long as Ellsbury is involved, I'll take the trade. Otherwise, what good is Lowell and Tavarez going to do for us? At least get the CF prospect in case our circus in the outfield doesn't find stability.

Heltonfan · 01-27-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

If Monfort is really wanting to help our chances in 2007, have any of the trade scenarios we've read today helped that cause?

Hell no. I was quite surprised to see Monfort even suggest that a Helton trade could help us in '07; that's a level of delusion that doesn't come along very often.

Clement and Ellsbury have no '07 value (Clement's hurt, Ellsbury's not ready). Hansen projects to be worth 3 RAR. So does Tavarez. Delcarmen projects at 8 RAR. The difference between Helton and Jeff Baker is 46 runs; the difference between Helton and Lowell is 33 runs. So with these names involved, the best-case scenario, according to the projections, is that the deal costs us right around 2 wins.

TheIncredibleRox · 01-27-2007, 09:40 PM

Let's be clear about something here; Jacob Ellsbury, which seems to be the consensus "high-value" player possibly involved in this deal, is certainly no world beater.

He's a decent prospect and then some, but we're not talking about some sort of can't-miss future All-Star. As of now, he projects to a relatively average starting CF in time. Scouts are more optimistic than that. But just because he topped a BA list doesn't mean he's nearly on par with the Chris Youngs and Lastings Milledges as far as CF prospects go. I'm not sure I'd trade him straight-up for Fowler. Lower ceiling, closer to the Majors. Take your pick.

As far as Julian Tavarez, boy thats just what we need. An acceptable mop-up man for a team that already has 20 damn candidates for fifth starter, any of whom could fall into that role.

Any notion that Jeff Baker and/or Joe Koshansky will pick up an ounce of the slack left by Helton is ludicrous. Expecting either to produce meaningfully above replacement level for a 1B in 2007 is to expect a dramatic improvement over their '06 numbers-- at ages 26 and 25 respectively next season, that just isn't in the cards.

Manny Delcarmen has a chance of making a cheap and passable 7th inning man in the future. A chance.

People love to talk about Craig Hansen for whatever reason, but he's certainly far from some stud 8th inning man or any delusion therein. The salary difference between himself and Delcarmen probably isn't worth the talent disparity, and that's not so large of a gulf to overcome.

The only way this trade has a chance to be effective in my mind;

--Youkilis is a poor man's version of Todd Helton's 2006. Come to think of it, Todd Helton's 2006 was a poor man's version of Todd Helton. Anywho, the gulf between going into 2007 with Youkilis vs. some Baker/Koshansky monstrosity is huge. He's essentially an average 1B right now, and he's inexpensive. I'll take it.

--Coco Crisp looked pretty awful last season, but he still projects far better than Sullivan or Tavares.

--Ellsbury, as mentioned, is a pretty good prospect. Nothing fantastic by any means, but a solid player who could concievably allow us to trade Crisp after next season.

--Delcarmen, because he is a cheap and potentially useful arm. Never going to be an impact player, but for a team in our financial situation the difference between getting a Delcarmen and buying a Latroy Hawkins on the FA market is the difference between having a prayer at fielding a competitive roster and not.

--Pick up no more than $30 mil of what remains on Helton's deal, and being able to defer the payment.

That's what it would take for me to have any kind of positive feeling about this deal. From what we've been reading, I've got no chance.

redsock911 · 01-27-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Pick up no more than $30 mil of what remains on Helton's deal, and being able to defer the payment.

From ESPN: (ESPN.com - MLB - Rockies talking to Red Sox about trading Helton)

"Both sides are in virtual agreement on the dollars, with the Rockies likely responsible for slightly less than half of Helton's remaining six-year, $90.1 million guaranteed contract."

What's "slightly less than half?" $40 million?

I take it Rox fans wouldn't like this deal. The Bosox won't like it as much in 5 years but for now it will have to do.

How long have the Rox been in rebuilding mode? When is the plan to contend?

Heltonfan · 01-27-2007, 11:09 PM

Redsock911:

We're all pretty confused as to when exactly this team expects itself to contend. It's a tough situation, because we're set to lose one core player a year for the foreseeable future (Fuentes next year, Cook in '09, Holliday in '10, Atkins in '11... and of course, we lost Jennings this year, which killed the idea of contending in '07, at least in my mind), which means that, aside from the expected development of Tulowitzki and Iannetta, we're going to be in pretty much the same situation every year. And one of these years, we'll have to really make a run at it. Personally, I'd shoot for '08, because I think Aaron Cook is going to be awfully tough to replace. But it's really hard to say. There's no more difficult question facing this organization than the simple, seemingly innocuous, "when do you expect to contend?"

Heltonfan · 01-27-2007, 11:15 PM

Digging into this some more, and amending my comments (made in haste) from earlier today:

Delcarmen is probably going to be worth around 40 RAR before hitting free agency. At $2 million per win (which is still a good estimate of the actual value of a win, even though the free agent market has gone through the roof), that's $8 million of value... if he meets those expectations, he'll probably make a total of around $4 million above the minimum in his arbitration years. So his net value is about $4 million.

Hansen is similar, except he has a real contract already - call his value $3 million or so.

Youkilis is a 17 RAR player right now (being stuck at 1B, which would of course be the case with the Rockies as well, really cuts into his value). Figuring a decline of three runs per year, he's worth a total of 50 RAR over the next four years, before he hits free agency. And he'll probably make somewhere in the neighborhood of... I don't know... $12 million in his arb years? 5 wins for $12 million; that's not particularly exciting. Let's be generous and call him a $3 million asset...

Crisp? $15.5 million through '09. I've got him projected at 22 RAR next year... with the yearly decline, that gives us a total of 57 RAR over the next three years. A better player than Youkilis, but also a more expensive one... let's call him a $3 million asset as well.

Ellsbury? Off the top of my head, I'd guess a total of 25 RAR during his pre-arb years and 50 RAR during his arb years. So that's... rounding up a little bit... a $6 million value in the pre-arb years, and we'll give him the same treatment as Crisp and Youkilis, declaring him a $3 million value for his arb years even though the numbers don't quite seem to support that. Total value: $9 million.

$4 million for Delcarmen, $3 million for each of Hansen, Youkilis, and Crisp, $9 million for Ellsbury... total value of the package: $22 million. That's the generous estimate, with no Lowell, Tavarez, or Clement included in the deal to cut into our profit.

What this suggests, combined with my estimate from the other thread that Helton is making a total of $14 million more than we can reasonably be paying him (given our status as a low-payroll team), is that Helton and $36 million for Ellsbury, Youkilis, Crisp, Hansen, and Delcarmen would be a fair deal.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with TIR's assessment, give or take a few million. And that, since the rumors involve us taking on Clement or Lowell, paying $40-45 million of Helton's deal, and not getting Ellsbury, we stand a very good chance of coming out behind by $20 million or more if a deal actually happens. This could be really ugly.

I will say this, though: as a fan of both Helton and the Red Sox, if Helton is going to be dealt, there's no place I'd rather see him go than Boston. He's a terrific fit for Fenway.

Roxpert · 01-27-2007, 11:38 PM

Well, Tracy Ringolsby's article today suggested that the Rockies may pay slightly MORE than half of his remaining dollars. So whether it's slightly less or slightly more, it sure seems that we'll be paying 40-something million.

That means that the Red Sox would get 5 years of Helton for less than $50 million. That's a steal, even if Todd is really no more powerful than Sean Casey for the duration of his contract.

The key, then, will be the talent we'd get in return. If we are paying that kind of dough to unload Helton, I'd want Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Hansen (we could trade them Sullivan or Barmes to "help them out"). And then, I would want to hear Monfort tell us that he is raising payroll to league average in 2008, allowing us to go after real differences makers instead of odds and ends.

You see, the problem isn't that Helton takes up too high a percentage of the $55 million payroll. The problem is the denominator. The payroll is too low, and if it were $70+ million, Helton's salary wouldn't be the problem it's perceived to be today.

Monfort is going to be skewered if anything close to what we've read gets done soon, and rightfully so.

BigRapidsJackass · 01-28-2007, 12:56 AM

Wow, those names being tossed around are way, way less appealing to me than those we heard in the earlier Angels trade rumor.

And the timing of a Helton to Red Sox deal would be something worse than atrocious. At this point, it's pretty obvious that the money saved by dealing Helton this year would be either (1) miniscule or nonexistent, if we're forced to take Lowell, or (2) pocketed by the Monforts.

The Red Sox are a fine fit for Helton, but they've drained the farm system dry over the last couple years. That's why the Angels -- with a superb farm system -- are the better match from the Rockies' perspective.

I'd actually rather see the Helton-Manny Ramirez thing happen. At least we get a very productive player (I guess you'd stick him in RF for now) whose contract comes off the books much sooner. You'd have to throw in somebody else to help the Red Sox right away -- I think they could use Fuentes ...

... as or what the Red Sox and Angels are said to be offering, I thought it would be interesting to look at BP's comparables for the prospects:

Jacoby Ellsbury: guys like Chris Duffy, Willy Tavares (!), David DeJesus, Nate McLouth, Willie Harris, and some guys who apparently never made it like McKay Christensen (who?) I'm not impressed. Kind of fits with IR's assessment. Sickels rates him B+

Craig Hansen: mostly oldtimers, but also Tim Spooneybarger, Dave Borkowski, Ryan Wagner. But there's hope: Rich Gossage pops up, too. And Vicente Padilla. B+ for Sickels.

By the way, Clay Buchholz would be a better target. He's also a B+ from Sickels, but he just started pitching full-time a couple years ago and apparently has much higher upside.

The Angels floated Casey Kotchman, whom Sickels called "the next Wally Joyner," which is kind of like saying "the age 35 Todd Helton." His comps are not very comparable on BP's scale, but they include Pete LaCock (a 1970s Charlie Lau Royals machine product who never really established himself), Jamie Quirk (ditto), and Tony Tarasco, but also Carlos Guillen. Overall, not too inspiring.

[By the way, the current BP comps for Helton include, at the top of the list: Wally Joyner, c. 1996. Mormon Wally admits to dabbling with steroids just after that 1996 season. Didn't really work for him, and Wayne Hagin says it didn't for Todd, either. The list also includes: Ryan Klesko (the 2005 weakened version), John Olerud c. 2002, Will Clark c. 1998, Don Mincher c. 1972, Norm Cash c. 1978, Keith Hernandez c. 1987. This is scary ...]

Erick Aybar's comps include Barry Larkin, both Izturises, Bert Campaneris, Luis Aparicio, Garry Templeton, Luis Rivas, and Adam Kennedy. I'll take my chances on getting a Larkin or Aparicio (or Tempy or Campy or Kennedy, for that matter) instead of a Luis Rivas. And the Angels have absolutely no use for him now, with Cabrera and Brandon Wood blocking him. Sickels dropped him to a "B" grade.

Roxpert · 01-28-2007, 07:57 AM

However you slice it, if we don't get either an MLB-ready potential IMPACT bat in this transaction, it will be deemed a failure, especially if we still have to pay $40+ million of Helton's remaining contract. I've been hoping for Ramirez or Andruw Jones, but if we somehow made this a 3-way trade, and got rid of our excess pitching to Tampa Bay for Rocco Baldelli, then I could see this being more palatable.

As is, the potential trade will seal Monfort's fate as a failed owner. Sort of like the surge sealing Bush's fate as a failure? (though IMO he failed much earlier).

denverbearsfan · 01-28-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

As is, the potential trade will seal Monfort's fate as a failed owner. Sort of like the surge sealing Bush's fate as a failure? (though IMO he failed much earlier).

I am not opposed to trading Helton (in fact have been in favor of it for a couple of seasons) but not for the table scraps mentioned in this Red Sox deal. Why is Helton's big salary suddenly a problem for Rockies ownership now, when it has been a burden for several seasons? Why "sell low" when the team could have received a better return a couple of years ago? Why the change of mind to unload Helton now? Wasn't Ryan Shealy traded because his path to the majors was blocked by Todd?

In my opinion the Rockies are never going to be contenders until we get new owners. I heard Monfort say in an interview before last season something like "if we can't get the job done, we'll sell the team" Maybe if Todd is unloaded in a lopsided trade the public outcry will be so loud that the Monforts will get tired of it and sell the team. If a bad trade of Helton eventually led to new ownership, it might be a blessing in disguise.

sg8335aa · 01-28-2007, 11:21 AM

To address one point.......Ryan Shealy isn't the 2nd coming. He is, in fact, not a great prospect. He'll be a solid contributer to the Royals for several years but I wouldn't count on anything more than a "Matt Stairs" type of contribution.

The Rockies have a TON of potential 1B replacements. Between moving Atkins or Hawpe back to 1B.....to having Jeff Baker take over 1B (instead of 3B/RF in a Hawpe/Atkins move).......to calling up Josh Koshansky.

Koshansky is a better prospect than Shealy.......let alone the option of shifting Atkins to 1B to open up a spot for Ian Stewart.

Stop mentioning Ryan Shealy.....he's irrelevant to this conversation.

Roxpert · 01-28-2007, 12:35 PM

I'd love to see what Josh Koshansky could do, but doubt it will ever happen. JOE Koshansky, on the other hand, may get a good look-see in Spring Training if Helton is traded before then.

And I certainly wouldn't say that Koshansky is a better prospect than Shealy. Better power, perhaps, but a less disciplined hitter overall.

01-27-2007, 07:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,010	Helton Trade Talks Confirmed..... Major League Baseball : News : Major League Baseball News Charlie Monfort is openly acknowledging that they are exploring a trade of Helton to the Red Sox. Funny, he says the reason is that they think they can win the division THIS YEAR, and so they want to be careful in any trade of Helton that it doesn't harm their chances. Heltonfan, this raises a question. If Monfort is really wanting to help our chances in 2007, have any of the trade scenarios we've read today helped that cause? Please run a pro-forma projection of estimated wins with the following trades in mind, if you have time: Helton for Clement, Hansen, and Ellsbury. Helton for Lowell, Tavarez, and Hansen. Helton for Hansen, Delcarmen, and Ellsbury. Any other combination you'd like to try. As I recall, you have the Rockies projected at about 76 wins. How does that change if they make any of the above trades? Of course, you'd have to incorporate some assumptions about who would gain playing time freed up by Helton's departure. I'm guessing that you won't find a scenario in which the Rockies would win more games than you already projected, and the falloff in wins could be significant (maybe up to 5 games?). Thanks in advance for doing this.

01-28-2007, 12:56 AM	#11 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,110	Wow, those names being tossed around are way, way less appealing to me than those we heard in the earlier Angels trade rumor. And the timing of a Helton to Red Sox deal would be something worse than atrocious. At this point, it's pretty obvious that the money saved by dealing Helton this year would be either (1) miniscule or nonexistent, if we're forced to take Lowell, or (2) pocketed by the Monforts. The Red Sox are a fine fit for Helton, but they've drained the farm system dry over the last couple years. That's why the Angels -- with a superb farm system -- are the better match from the Rockies' perspective. I'd actually rather see the Helton-Manny Ramirez thing happen. At least we get a very productive player (I guess you'd stick him in RF for now) whose contract comes off the books much sooner. You'd have to throw in somebody else to help the Red Sox right away -- I think they could use Fuentes ... ... as or what the Red Sox and Angels are said to be offering, I thought it would be interesting to look at BP's comparables for the prospects: Jacoby Ellsbury: guys like Chris Duffy, Willy Tavares (!), David DeJesus, Nate McLouth, Willie Harris, and some guys who apparently never made it like McKay Christensen (who?) I'm not impressed. Kind of fits with IR's assessment. Sickels rates him B+ Craig Hansen: mostly oldtimers, but also Tim Spooneybarger, Dave Borkowski, Ryan Wagner. But there's hope: Rich Gossage pops up, too. And Vicente Padilla. B+ for Sickels. By the way, Clay Buchholz would be a better target. He's also a B+ from Sickels, but he just started pitching full-time a couple years ago and apparently has much higher upside. The Angels floated Casey Kotchman, whom Sickels called "the next Wally Joyner," which is kind of like saying "the age 35 Todd Helton." His comps are not very comparable on BP's scale, but they include Pete LaCock (a 1970s Charlie Lau Royals machine product who never really established himself), Jamie Quirk (ditto), and Tony Tarasco, but also Carlos Guillen. Overall, not too inspiring. [By the way, the current BP comps for Helton include, at the top of the list: Wally Joyner, c. 1996. Mormon Wally admits to dabbling with steroids just after that 1996 season. Didn't really work for him, and Wayne Hagin says it didn't for Todd, either. The list also includes: Ryan Klesko (the 2005 weakened version), John Olerud c. 2002, Will Clark c. 1998, Don Mincher c. 1972, Norm Cash c. 1978, Keith Hernandez c. 1987. This is scary ...] Erick Aybar's comps include Barry Larkin, both Izturises, Bert Campaneris, Luis Aparicio, Garry Templeton, Luis Rivas, and Adam Kennedy. I'll take my chances on getting a Larkin or Aparicio (or Tempy or Campy or Kennedy, for that matter) instead of a Luis Rivas. And the Angels have absolutely no use for him now, with Cabrera and Brandon Wood blocking him. Sickels dropped him to a "B" grade. Last edited by BigRapidsJackass; 01-28-2007 at 01:42 AM.

01-28-2007, 11:21 AM	#14 (permalink)
sg8335aa Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 118	Shealy To address one point.......Ryan Shealy isn't the 2nd coming. He is, in fact, not a great prospect. He'll be a solid contributer to the Royals for several years but I wouldn't count on anything more than a "Matt Stairs" type of contribution. The Rockies have a TON of potential 1B replacements. Between moving Atkins or Hawpe back to 1B.....to having Jeff Baker take over 1B (instead of 3B/RF in a Hawpe/Atkins move).......to calling up Josh Koshansky. Koshansky is a better prospect than Shealy.......let alone the option of shifting Atkins to 1B to open up a spot for Ian Stewart. Stop mentioning Ryan Shealy.....he's irrelevant to this conversation.

01-27-2007, 08:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
RMF Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 197	Why did we trade Shealy? Not that he can't be replaced but I seriously doubt that Jeremy Affeldt is the difference between winning the division. I just don't understand. It seems to me like the individual seasons and offseason actions make sense. They seem to have themes, generally involving cost cutting. However, when you add up those individual seasons into half a decade the net moves don't always seem to make sense. Last year Helton is untradeable this year he must go. Last year they can't get "fair market" for Shealy and now he's not around to fill the hole at 1B. We've no word that Ian Stewart or Koshansky are close to ready. I guess Baker could be the 1B but this is just kind of strange. This franchise needs a new face. Any guess who that might me? I don't see us coming ahead in a Boston trade this year. I can see some deals for prospects that would be nice HF already mentioned some, but I have a very hard time believing this move brings us closer to winning the division this season. This is the kind of move that makes me think O'dowd's job is safe and Hurdle is out. Funny that Monfort would buy into O'dowd's abilities and realize Clint needs to go this late in the game. This organization is strange. Apodaca will probably end up as the new manager.

01-27-2007, 08:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
Rankal Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 84	As long as Ellsbury is involved, I'll take the trade. Otherwise, what good is Lowell and Tavarez going to do for us? At least get the CF prospect in case our circus in the outfield doesn't find stability.

01-27-2007, 09:40 PM	#6 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 270	Let's be clear about something here; Jacob Ellsbury, which seems to be the consensus "high-value" player possibly involved in this deal, is certainly no world beater. He's a decent prospect and then some, but we're not talking about some sort of can't-miss future All-Star. As of now, he projects to a relatively average starting CF in time. Scouts are more optimistic than that. But just because he topped a BA list doesn't mean he's nearly on par with the Chris Youngs and Lastings Milledges as far as CF prospects go. I'm not sure I'd trade him straight-up for Fowler. Lower ceiling, closer to the Majors. Take your pick. As far as Julian Tavarez, boy thats just what we need. An acceptable mop-up man for a team that already has 20 damn candidates for fifth starter, any of whom could fall into that role. Any notion that Jeff Baker and/or Joe Koshansky will pick up an ounce of the slack left by Helton is ludicrous. Expecting either to produce meaningfully above replacement level for a 1B in 2007 is to expect a dramatic improvement over their '06 numbers-- at ages 26 and 25 respectively next season, that just isn't in the cards. Manny Delcarmen has a chance of making a cheap and passable 7th inning man in the future. A chance. People love to talk about Craig Hansen for whatever reason, but he's certainly far from some stud 8th inning man or any delusion therein. The salary difference between himself and Delcarmen probably isn't worth the talent disparity, and that's not so large of a gulf to overcome. The only way this trade has a chance to be effective in my mind; --Youkilis is a poor man's version of Todd Helton's 2006. Come to think of it, Todd Helton's 2006 was a poor man's version of Todd Helton. Anywho, the gulf between going into 2007 with Youkilis vs. some Baker/Koshansky monstrosity is huge. He's essentially an average 1B right now, and he's inexpensive. I'll take it. --Coco Crisp looked pretty awful last season, but he still projects far better than Sullivan or Tavares. --Ellsbury, as mentioned, is a pretty good prospect. Nothing fantastic by any means, but a solid player who could concievably allow us to trade Crisp after next season. --Delcarmen, because he is a cheap and potentially useful arm. Never going to be an impact player, but for a team in our financial situation the difference between getting a Delcarmen and buying a Latroy Hawkins on the FA market is the difference between having a prayer at fielding a competitive roster and not. --Pick up no more than $30 mil of what remains on Helton's deal, and being able to defer the payment. That's what it would take for me to have any kind of positive feeling about this deal. From what we've been reading, I've got no chance.

01-27-2007, 11:09 PM	#8 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 846	Redsock911: We're all pretty confused as to when exactly this team expects itself to contend. It's a tough situation, because we're set to lose one core player a year for the foreseeable future (Fuentes next year, Cook in '09, Holliday in '10, Atkins in '11... and of course, we lost Jennings this year, which killed the idea of contending in '07, at least in my mind), which means that, aside from the expected development of Tulowitzki and Iannetta, we're going to be in pretty much the same situation every year. And one of these years, we'll have to really make a run at it. Personally, I'd shoot for '08, because I think Aaron Cook is going to be awfully tough to replace. But it's really hard to say. There's no more difficult question facing this organization than the simple, seemingly innocuous, "when do you expect to contend?"

01-27-2007, 11:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 846	Digging into this some more, and amending my comments (made in haste) from earlier today: Delcarmen is probably going to be worth around 40 RAR before hitting free agency. At $2 million per win (which is still a good estimate of the actual value of a win, even though the free agent market has gone through the roof), that's $8 million of value... if he meets those expectations, he'll probably make a total of around $4 million above the minimum in his arbitration years. So his net value is about $4 million. Hansen is similar, except he has a real contract already - call his value $3 million or so. Youkilis is a 17 RAR player right now (being stuck at 1B, which would of course be the case with the Rockies as well, really cuts into his value). Figuring a decline of three runs per year, he's worth a total of 50 RAR over the next four years, before he hits free agency. And he'll probably make somewhere in the neighborhood of... I don't know... $12 million in his arb years? 5 wins for $12 million; that's not particularly exciting. Let's be generous and call him a $3 million asset... Crisp? $15.5 million through '09. I've got him projected at 22 RAR next year... with the yearly decline, that gives us a total of 57 RAR over the next three years. A better player than Youkilis, but also a more expensive one... let's call him a $3 million asset as well. Ellsbury? Off the top of my head, I'd guess a total of 25 RAR during his pre-arb years and 50 RAR during his arb years. So that's... rounding up a little bit... a $6 million value in the pre-arb years, and we'll give him the same treatment as Crisp and Youkilis, declaring him a $3 million value for his arb years even though the numbers don't quite seem to support that. Total value: $9 million. $4 million for Delcarmen, $3 million for each of Hansen, Youkilis, and Crisp, $9 million for Ellsbury... total value of the package: $22 million. That's the generous estimate, with no Lowell, Tavarez, or Clement included in the deal to cut into our profit. What this suggests, combined with my estimate from the other thread that Helton is making a total of $14 million more than we can reasonably be paying him (given our status as a low-payroll team), is that Helton and $36 million for Ellsbury, Youkilis, Crisp, Hansen, and Delcarmen would be a fair deal. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with TIR's assessment, give or take a few million. And that, since the rumors involve us taking on Clement or Lowell, paying $40-45 million of Helton's deal, and not getting Ellsbury, we stand a very good chance of coming out behind by $20 million or more if a deal actually happens. This could be really ugly. I will say this, though: as a fan of both Helton and the Red Sox, if Helton is going to be dealt, there's no place I'd rather see him go than Boston. He's a terrific fit for Fenway.

01-27-2007, 11:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,010	Well, Tracy Ringolsby's article today suggested that the Rockies may pay slightly MORE than half of his remaining dollars. So whether it's slightly less or slightly more, it sure seems that we'll be paying 40-something million. That means that the Red Sox would get 5 years of Helton for less than $50 million. That's a steal, even if Todd is really no more powerful than Sean Casey for the duration of his contract. The key, then, will be the talent we'd get in return. If we are paying that kind of dough to unload Helton, I'd want Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Hansen (we could trade them Sullivan or Barmes to "help them out"). And then, I would want to hear Monfort tell us that he is raising payroll to league average in 2008, allowing us to go after real differences makers instead of odds and ends. You see, the problem isn't that Helton takes up too high a percentage of the $55 million payroll. The problem is the denominator. The payroll is too low, and if it were $70+ million, Helton's salary wouldn't be the problem it's perceived to be today. Monfort is going to be skewered if anything close to what we've read gets done soon, and rightfully so.

01-28-2007, 07:57 AM	#12 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,010	However you slice it, if we don't get either an MLB-ready potential IMPACT bat in this transaction, it will be deemed a failure, especially if we still have to pay $40+ million of Helton's remaining contract. I've been hoping for Ramirez or Andruw Jones, but if we somehow made this a 3-way trade, and got rid of our excess pitching to Tampa Bay for Rocco Baldelli, then I could see this being more palatable. As is, the potential trade will seal Monfort's fate as a failed owner. Sort of like the surge sealing Bush's fate as a failure? (though IMO he failed much earlier).

01-28-2007, 12:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,010	I'd love to see what Josh Koshansky could do, but doubt it will ever happen. JOE Koshansky, on the other hand, may get a good look-see in Spring Training if Helton is traded before then. And I certainly wouldn't say that Koshansky is a better prospect than Shealy. Better power, perhaps, but a less disciplined hitter overall.