 |
|
|
| |
« Odds and Ends: Posada, Uribe, Wise, Red Sox | Main | Odds and Ends: Alvarez, Zimmerman, Vizcaino, Hawkins »
Should Rockies Deal Holliday?
The Denver Post has split opinions on whether or not the Rockies should deal Matt Holliday this season. Columnist Troy E. Renck says the Rockies have been bad "from top to bottom." He cites the rotation, situational hitting, leaky bullpen, and dealing with pressure as problem spots and that they would need to go "70-36 in their final 106 games" to be in contention.
As MLBTR has covered here, Woody Paige reports that the Rockies can't tie up $40MM in three position players and that Scott Boras won't accept a hometown discount. Paige proposes:
Holliday would be a significant addition for Cleveland, and the Rockies also could send best friend Garrett Atkins or Brad Hawpe... [for] starting pitcher Cliff Lee (8-1, 1.88 ERA and four superb pitches), a middle reliever and an outfield prospect. The Rox, depending on the second player in the deal, play Ian Stewart at third or in left, and Ryan Spilborghs becomes a full-time starting outfielder who could be the next Holliday.
Alternatively, Mark Kiszla believes trading him would not bring enough back to justify not re-signing him and that trading him would send the wrong message to players and fans. Instead, they should actively work to re-sign the slugger through negotiations. Kiszla's argument:
"When the Texas Rangers decided it could not pay to keep powerful young first baseman Mark Teixeira a year ago, the offer the Rangers finally accepted from Atlanta was for a rookie catcher and four minor-league prospects."
Interestingly, Jon Heyman thinks the Rockies won't be able to get as good a deal as the Rangers got for Teixeira, a deal that's not good enough for Mark Kiszla.
By Nat Boyle
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e552adfc388834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Should Rockies Deal Holliday?:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
I don't see this at all. Terry Pluto, who is as good as it gets in covering the Indians, writes in his column today that if the Tribe doesn't get to .500 by the end of their current road trip, then they should seriously consider becoming sellers instead of buyers. 5 games under and 5 games back on June 1 is not a recipe for making the playoffs. Pluto points out that only like 6 of nearly 100 teams have made the post season with a record as bad as the Indians at the start of June.
So, if anything, Indians look more like sellers than buyers at this point because I just don't see this dysfunctional offense turning it around over the next few weeks, to put them at a point where they could make a credible run. That means half the team could be available, and certainly means they won't go after high priced talent.
Posted by: max power | June 01, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Would the Indians be using Holliday as a rental? or would they actually intend to sign him? If they are having so much trouble signing Sabathia, why would they be able to sign Holliday?
Posted by: BigPlay | June 01, 2008 at 09:45 AM
They wouldn't be able to sign Holliday. I think they are trying to make a playoff push before they lose Sabathia. No way the Rockies would accept that offer, though. Why would they trade 2 proven commodities like Holliday and Atkins/Hawpe for Cliff Lee who has only one more year on his contract. Plus Lee won't be this good next year. And without Holliday and Atkins/Hawpe, the Rockies wouldn't be any better off this year.
Posted by: Joe | June 01, 2008 at 10:27 AM
That trade offer is embarrassing. No way Colorado would trade Holliday and Atkins or Hawpe for Cliff Lee, a reliever, and an OF prospect like Franklin Gutierrez (just a guess but they don't have any better OF prospects).
Posted by: SBE | June 01, 2008 at 10:38 AM
So Woody Paige says that the fluky Cliff Lee, a reliever and Franklin Gutierrez or Nick Weglarz is enough, but the other guy believed that the incredible package of Salty/Andrus/Feliz/Harrison/Jones for Tex wasn't enough. Salty and Andrus are going to be cornerstones at two of the most difficult positions on the field to play, catcher and shortstop. And Harrison and Jones have chances to be solid pitchers, with Feliz as the high risk/reward potential ace in the package. If the Rockies could get anything near that from Cleveland it'd be a great deal.
I think that moving Holliday to the Indians though would almost promise them of getting less than equal value. The Indians just don't really have the kind of players that the Rockies need. The only way I see a Holliday to Cleveland trade is if they are willing to give up both Aaron Laffey and Adam Miller, which I seriously doubt.
But does anyone think that the Cubs could be interested in Brad Hawpe? They've been talking about adding a power hitting outfielder, and Hawpe is that, as well as a lefty. He probably wouldn't cost a ton, not much more than Ronny Cedeno and a prospect. We could offer them Cedeno (to play second), Murton (to replace Hawpe), and a pitching prospect as well. Just throwing it out there, though I'm sure Chicago would prefer someone more capable of handling center.
Posted by: scribbletone | June 01, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Ok, well this pretty obvious. Colorado and the Indians aren't going to make a deal like the one Woody Paige suggested. The Indians do have a wealth of good young pitching throughout the minor leagues. I don't think that the Indians will trade both Laffey and Miller, but they might trade Sowers and Miller.
If it is going to be an Atkins/Holliday deal then it most likely will be a an 8 for 2 trade.
Some players included may be: Sowers, Miller, Crowes, Gonzalez, Gut, and some more young pitchers because well that is what the Rockies are lacking, and always have lacked.
Look at it from the Rockies' perspective, Holliday and Atkins will most likely leave when theyir contracts are up. So, don't let them get away without anything in return, and make a deal.
Also if the Indians make this trade they will not just make it for this year and next they will try to lock both Atkins and Holliday to long term deals.
P.S. I still think that C.C. Sabathia resigns with the Indians when it is all said and done. That is just how I feel.
Posted by: Chengy | June 01, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The Rockies should absolutely trade Holliday - if they can land a bounty similar to Tex. This proposal doesn't come close.
I don't think the Indians are out of it. They are a team that can turn on the switch at some point and become dominant again. The White Sox are pretenders and the Tigers have major problems. The Central could be won by a team with 85 wins. Why not the Indians?
Posted by: bjsguess | June 01, 2008 at 11:48 AM
But the question is do the Indians really have what it takes to make it worth giving up Holliday and/or Atkins? I feel like there is bound to be some team out there willing to give up more than some marginal prospects, a top prospect or two, and an injury prone stud in Miller.
Posted by: scribbletone | June 01, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I doupt the Indians get Holliday, but I could see them gettin Atkins for a package of Aaron Laffey, Rafael Perez, and Andy Marte. The Rox put Ian Stewart at third-base, Marte is a high-risk high-rewardgy, and Perez helps their bullpen a lot.
Posted by: Joe | June 01, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Joe, you are seriously over valuing Atkins. Laffey plus Perez forget Marte, he's just a throw in) is way, way, way too much. I'm not sure I'd do Laffey for Atkins straight up. Atkins just isn't that good defensively.
Posted by: MickS | June 01, 2008 at 01:12 PM
"I could see them gettin Atkins for a package of Aaron Laffey, Rafael Perez, and Andy Marte."
I could see a package near something like this, but I think that it would make more sense for the Rockies to go after Josh Barfield than Andy Marte. The Rockies have a big whole at second and giving Barfield a shot seems like a good idea.
So maybe forget about Perez and have the deal be Atkins for Laffey and Barfield. The Rockies may have to throw in a prospect or a reliever but I doubt that'd make or break the deal.
And MickS, I think that a Laffey for Atkins deal is very sensible. Atkins may not be a good defensive 3B, but it is more than offset by his bat. He's a very good hitter and a mediocre fielder, but at this point the Indians really need hitting. They have a huge surplus of pitching and are getting killed by their own offense right now. Considering that the Indians are still totally in the AL Central division race after whats happened to Detroit, I think that adding Atkins would be a very smart move for Cleveland. Maybe the Indians would prefer to give up Lofgren or Sowers, but the Indians need an impact bat and Atkins fits that tag.
Posted by: scribbletone | June 01, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Why would the Indians give up Perez? Have you seen Betancourt, Borowski, and Lewis pitch this year? Lewis is in the minors, Borowski has an ERA over 10, and Betancourt has been nothing like last year. Perez is the only bullpen they have.
The deal would be Laffey and Barfield for Atkins. Honestly, I would rather have a guy who can steal some bases for Cleveland. If you cant hit HRs you better have some speed and Grady is all they have. Plus it's not helping anything that Grady almost leads the team in HRs from the leadoff spot.
Posted by: the lowercase zach is better | June 01, 2008 at 01:22 PM
"Honestly, I would rather have a guy who can steal some bases for Cleveland"
Ahem, Kenny Lofton..
Posted by: scribbletone | June 01, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Clint Barmes is a shortstop who won't kill you. They can live with him there. I think bullpen is a bigger need. All they have is Fuentes (who is probably going to be traded) and Taylor Bucholtz. The Indians do have a mediocre bullpen. Betancourt has only been bad as a closer. Kobayashi has been very good. Maybe the Rox through in Fuentes and also get Barfield. So it would look like this...
Laffey, Perez, Barfield, Marte
for
Atkins and Fuentes.
Posted by: Joe | June 01, 2008 at 01:48 PM
I mean Barmes is a second-baseman that won't kill you.
Posted by: Joe | June 01, 2008 at 01:49 PM
“the offer the Rangers finally accepted from Atlanta was for a rookie catcher and four minor-league prospects."
…What an ignorant statement. I mean, what does he expect a seller to bring in, an AS in his walk-year maybe?
“Terry Pluto, who is as good as it gets in covering the Indians, writes in his column today that if the Tribe doesn't get to .500 by the end of their current road trip, then they should seriously consider becoming sellers instead of buyers.”
…I love Pluto, but… Well I’m wondering if he fall asleep at the PC today, woke up quickly in that morning-daze we all experience from time to time, and wrote his story as if he thought the team still plays in the AL-East… With the exception of the Royals, the Central is currently flipped upside down from what most projected. If the Tigers had an 8 game lead and were still not producing like expected yet, I would agree ~ but as it stands…
“But the question is do the Indians really have what it takes to make it worth giving up Holliday and/or Atkins?”
…Absolutely… Apparently you must not know a ton about the Rockies needs, or the Indians system. Well, you could also be doing the ‘bash the other system so I can try to talk up a Cubs deal I would really like to take place’ thing ~ we have seen that before…
Posted by: darkstar1661 | June 01, 2008 at 01:57 PM
“I doupt the Indians get Holliday”
...I feel thats the correct statement. Who would be foolish enough to pay through the nose for Holliday? I seriously doubt it will be the Indians, who are generally cautious when making deal. They don’t panic and start throwing prospects away for players with huge question marks just because they have gigantic names.
Atkins to Cleveland does make a ton of sense; 3B is the most logical place to add to (allows Blake to move to utility and still get the ABs the team will give him). Biggest problem with the deal probably comes with the other move that would have to take lace with it though ~ making a 25-man spot for him. They don’t want to DFA Marte, they don’t want to send down Ben Francisco, they cant send down Choo or FrankieG…
Posted by: darkstar1661 | June 01, 2008 at 01:58 PM
I would love for the Tribe to get Atkins. My concern, though, is that the combination of him and Peralta on the left side of the infield would be horrible. We'd have to put Cabrera at short and do something with Jhonny. Maybe he could be included in the deal, or in a different trade. Of course, with Hafner on the DL/struggling, maybe DH is the place for Peralta...
Posted by: Krambo42 | June 01, 2008 at 02:24 PM
2005-7 road OPS: Teixeira .915, Holliday .809
Posted by: wcw | June 01, 2008 at 02:25 PM
I agree, go after Atkins if anything, forget Holliday. But there are still some problems from the Indians end. Adam Miller is out again with finger surgery and he can't even resume baseball activities for 2 months. So he probably won't be traded. Asdrubal Cabrera may be a whiz with the glove but his bat is downright disgusting so far this year (it's possible that he truly isn't MLB ready with the bat) so Barfield will probably have to stay (he could be in the majors soon as is). Byrd is gone after the season and CC is also likely, so keeping MLB ready pitching is a must (Laffey and Sowers) which means they'd probably have to trade some lower level pitching (which they do have). You want to keep those pitchers around so that you can focus your off season FA budget on some offense and bullpen (Closer maybe). There was a post on here a bit back on how the Rox would be looking for more low level, high ceiling types in trades. Taking that into account you could probably swing a Chuck Lofgren or even maybe David Huff along with other minor parts. As to who do you send down, Cabrera could prolly use a wake-up call trip and then you have Aubrey, Mujica, and possibly losing Elarton.
Posted by: grimace455 | June 01, 2008 at 02:26 PM
"The Indians do have a mediocre bullpen. Betancourt has only been bad as a closer."
This statement is incorrect. Last year opposing hitters hit .183 against Betancourt. This year they have hit .316. He had a +5 ERA before the move to closer and already picked up a loss since moving back to reliever against the white sox.
The Indians just do not have the depth in the bullpen to justify moving Perez. I've watched nearly every game this year, the only pen guys they will use in a close game are Perez, Betancourt, and Kobayashi... and really only Perez and Masa have been effective.
Posted by: the lowercase zach is better | June 01, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Longterm 2B is most likely Josh Rodriguez at this point ~ who is probably not ready for another year though. Asdrubal was never a huge prospect with the Bat anyway, (remember, he is a slick-fielding SS) and I don’t think they expect a ton from him in that regard. But he isnt as bad as he has played either ~ he is possibly a young guy falling into the team-wide hitting slump more than just a guy who wont hit at all. Barfield would be on the ML squad right now if the team wasn’t forced to keep Marte there; but one of the two (read “Barfield since he’s incapable of playing SS”) is expendable (unless they plan on moving Peralta to 3B next year)…
Right now, Aubrey is just a DL replacement so his spot on the 25-man is only a temporary one. If Atkins was brought in, the team would be looking at a hitting-squad of:
C ~ VMart / Shoopach
DH ~ Pronk (Aubrey basically his DL-rep now)
IF ~ Garko / Cabrera (or Barfield) / Peralta / Atkins / Carroll / Marte
OF ~ Sizemore / Choo / Gutierrez / Dellucci / Francisco
IF/OF Uti ~ Blake
…That’s two men too many… One of the OF might be included in the deal, but that only semi-helps…
Apparently the team is unofficially making Marte their main 3B right now to see if he is in the longterm plans. A deal for Atkins could completely hinge on his play ~ if he does bad then they make a move, if he shows any promise then forget it because roster restraints make it too much of a problem.
Its tough, the two guys I see as most expendable from the squad are the two they are probably less like to move (Blake and DavidD) ~ and their being expendable has more to do with recent play and longterm value than anything else; but either could be an important part of a run just as well… It’s a thin line of “go with the kids you got while hoping the rest of the team wakes up” vs “make a move to ideally spark the club, at the expense of something you might need later”. Third, and probably the most likely option in my mind, is the riskier “wait to better figure out which holes will stay holes over the next month…”
With so many guys currently slumping its difficult to know the real position to upgrade with. 3B is extremely logical because it fixes that hole while allowing the OF to have a boost from Blake if he is the one who comes around ~ but its not without its drawbacks either and because of that I almost feel they don’t do anything until after the break…
Posted by: darkstar1661 | June 01, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I agree that I don't think the Indians will make a move until the AS break, or end of June at the earliest. As for Cabrera, if it is him just falling in line with the rest of the offenses' slump then you should just send him down to break his funk. He's still very young so you aren't risking much. Bringing up Barfield and giving him a shot can't hurt, especially since Marte is now primarily handling 3B, that still gives you Carrol to spell 2B/SS and Blake to spell 3B.
Posted by: grimace455 | June 01, 2008 at 04:19 PM
I still like the idea of the Cubs trading for Holliday. This would move Fukudome to CF and Holliday to RF. We could make a nice deal for the Rockies, but I am not going to speculate what that might be right now. But the Cubs need to go over the top. This is their year, so lets do this thing. Agree/Disagree?
Posted by: uww1 | June 01, 2008 at 09:17 PM
“As for Cabrera, if it is him just falling in line with the rest of the offenses' slump then you should just send him down to break his funk.”
…it could have to do with the fact that Barfield is hitting just as bad in AAA right now. It would cost Cabrera an option year, it will take away from the defensive side of the position, and it may or may-not make a difference at the plate from the 2B spot… Plus, you always stand the chance that a demotion hurts Cabrera longterm more than his current slump does. Is it really worth it when everything is factored?
Posted by: darkstar1661 | June 02, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Cubs' fans please don't get your hopes up for Holliday, I doubt they will make that deal. If they do they might have to many all-stars, look at Detroit it isn't working.
I will agree with you all that the Indians may dangle a pitcher out in the market before the trade deadline, however, it won't be C.C. Sabathia it will be Paul Byrd. That's right you heard me Paul Byrd.
Yes I still think that the Indians are the biggest players in the Matt Holliday/Atkins sweepstakes. I mean even if Holliday is still injured the Indians could plug him in the DH spot while Hafner recovers.
Yes, I still believe the Indians are looking to improve this season, no one is running away with the division 5 games back is not impossible to overcome.
I am a fan so I hope this happens.
Posted by: Chengy | June 02, 2008 at 03:55 PM
With the Indians 5.5 out in a weak division that is bound to have someone step it up in the latter stages of the season, the question that is undoubtedly being pondered is whether or not they can guarantee a run with an acquisition. An acquisition of Holliday and Atkins (who I believe are both signed through '09) would be just what is needed to prime this team for a playoff run. At the moment, this team, as a whole, is struggling offensively. However, the acquisition of two impact bats who have proven power and ability to get on base (although Atkins' walk rate is down thus far this year). By acquiring the two of them and making a significant run down the stretch, in my mind, significantly increases the chances of the team signing Sabathia. The only unknown here is who to give up. What exactly the Rockies would be willing to accept is something we only may speculate. With the acquisition of Holliday, there will be an even more crowded outfield situation than already. This means one, if not two of them, have got to go. While I'd prefer to give Francisco over Gutierrez, you've got to give to get. They can take their pick. Many believe that Jhonny Peralta's time in Cleveland may be over soon if they could fond an adequate trading partner. This would open a hole for Asdrubal Cabrera to shift over to his original position at short and bring Barfield up for second. Assuming Peralta stays with the club, we trade Barfield and deal with a hole at second if/when the problem becomes relevant. Worst case scenario, we lose Peralta and don't receive a player to plug our hole at second leaving Jamey Carroll filling in for the remainder of the year. There are a number of second baseman who will be hitting the FA market in the offseason. Perhaps the most intriguing name for the Indians is Orlando Hudson. Or, Eric Patterson of the Cubs (who was written about as a blocked prospect) may be a potential trade target. I don't see the Rockies having any interest in Andy Marte, but if they do, they can have him. I'd be personally willing to throw Ryan Garko into the mix as well. Casey Blake could shift to cover first for the remainder of the year with the acquisition of Atkins. Or share time with Victor Martinez, routinely giving Shoppach more work behind the plate. Then, the cream and wheat of the deal. A combination involving Adam Miller and one of Cliff Lee/Jeremy Sowers or Aaron Laffey. That leaves the deal standing at:
Indians receive:
Matt Holliday
Garrett Atkins
Rockies receive:
Francisco/Gutierrez
Josh Barfield
Andy Marte(if they wish)
Ryan Garko
Adam Miller
Lee/Laffey/Sowers
Posted by: tribefan | June 04, 2008 at 01:08 PM
I highly doubt the Indians will trade for Holliday, let alone Holliday along with Atkins. Trading just for Atkins is much more likely.
The Indians are extremely patient and against giving away their big players.
It was highly rumored the Rockies were asking for Laffey and Barfield for Atkins.
I just dont see it happening. Signing Holliday leaves no money to sign Sabathia next year and there is NO chance they can sign Holliday long term.
So now your looking at a starting 5 next year of Carmona, Westbrook, Lee, Sowers, and ???. The pitching depth is completely gone along with Holliday the year after.
And we may need Barfield THIS YEAR. We cant trade him now with Asdrubal hitting .180 and Peralta .230.
Not to mention the love-fest Cleveland fans are having over Ben Francisco, and he would be the Rockies selection no doubt about it.
In my opinion Atkins for Barfield and Laffey is possible. I think the Tribe are trying to avoid trading Barfield and swapping Laffey for Sowers, but if they continue to lose they will be content watching Andy Marte play regularly the rest of the season.
Posted by: the lowercase zach is better | June 04, 2008 at 03:56 PM