The Rockies front office has no doubt done little to improve the team so far this offseason. The question is could they? Have they ignored opportunities to improve the team? I do not believe they have; and this offseason shows the unique challenge the Rockies franchise faces.
Yes the Rockies need pitching. But what free agent pitcher are they missing out on? The Rockies are in the miserable position of being at a huge handicap in signing free agent pitchers. Even if the Rockies were willing to put up significant long term money for a pitcher the price would be steeper for the Rockies. Consider the top free agent starting pitchers in play for more than one year deals according to Jeff Passan’s free agent tracker: Obviously Grienke money is out of the picture. The Rockies making a serious play for Anibal Sanchez? His $80 million payday probably has to go closer to $85 or $90 million for the Rockies to sign him. Edwin Jackson? Would take 4 years $55-60 million dollars. Brandon McCarthy and Scott Baker? A SP trying to rebuild value after injury would never sign with the Rockies unless they overpaid significantly and guaranteed more years. Ryan Dempster would probably have demanded a 3rd year to sign with the Rockies, probably at about the same money so a total deal of 3 years, $40 million. Kyle Lohse may not even be a fit for Coors, and the 34 year old will probably be looking for 3 years, $35 million this offseason, so make that 3 years, $40 million for the Rockies.
Beyond this top tier of the FA list it gets awfully difficult to find pitchers who can pitch effectively in the big leagues for the next 2-3 years. So are any of the above contracts ones you would have wanted the Rockies to give out? Are the Rockies better off with Sanchez or Jackson in the rotation? Of course. Is it worth the risk the overpay would require? I don’t know, but it is certainly a difficult quandary for the front office. The team needs pitching but if the Rockies overpay they absolutely must hit the target. Even with MLB-wide revenues increasing this franchise can’t afford an underperforming high paid starter or the dead weight of enduring that dreaded extra year the Rockies might have to offer. Obviously the Rockies have the Nagle/Hampton affair in their history in regards to hoping an overpay works. The flexibility is just not there to absorb a possible bad signing the way higher revenue teams can.
So what other options to the Rockies have? There are two. Trade for pitching or use homegrown pitching. The Rockies are smack dab in the middle of the latter plan. It is a tenuous position to be in. Of course the talent is there to dream on, but depending on young developing pitching prospects is just simply very hard. In addition those prospects then have to pitch in Coors Field for their welcome to MLB which can intimidate and change their pitching style and aggressiveness.
Trading for pitching has many of the same issues. The Rockies would want young, cost controlled pitching in a trade so the talented yet unproven prospects the team would receive have the same risks and issues as the homegrown pitchers. A small number of talented pitching prospects become average or above average starting pitchers. Given the Rockies handicap in signing free agents the team needs more pitching prospects to increase the odds of developing major league regulars. The team needs to take its risks in trading for more young pitching instead of taking risks on free agent pitchers. The Rockies can lure free agent position players for more reasonable costs, so the team’s strategy should reflect this.
Front office strategy:
- Look to turn value in position players into young cost controlled pitching
- Replace position players with free agents; both short term deals and occasionally long term if there is a fit
- Only consider extending a free agent pitching contract once the team is near contention
What this would look like right now:
- Trade Dexter Fowler. Take Julio Teheran if you can get him from the Braves or Randall Delgado plus other younger arms.
- For 2013 the team could use Carlos Gonzalez in CF. Alternatively if the odd market that has led to Michael Bourn losing a game of musical chairs results in him taking a shorter term contact (3 years) the team could replace (or improve upon) Fowler’s production while adding possible starters. Part of the money could be made up by trading away Michael Cuddyer. It comes down to me believing the team has a better chance of getting return on spending money on position players rather than starting pitchers. I believe reasonable contracts to position players in Coors have a better chance of succeeding than overpays for 2nd tier starting pitchers.
- Consider trading Carlos Gonzalez. Look, you don’t like this. I don’t like this. But consider the Rockies offense without Gonzalez. It is still a competitive offense. The Rockies offense has been competitive nearly every year. The pitching has not been competitive. Offenses less impressive than the Rockies have obviously made the playoffs frequently over the last decade of baseball. The offense needs to be sacrificed to some extent to increase the competitiveness of the pitching. Cargo’s contract is team friendly and his age during the contract would deliver a huge return. Texas and Seattle are two teams that could be a fit for Cargo in this offseason. A deal with Seattle could yield 2-3 very high grade arms. A deal with Texas could bring one high grade arm (Martin Perez) and other position players (Mike Olt or Leonys Martin) that could then be turned around individually to other teams.
- Tyler Colvin could take Cargo’s spot. Or sign Cody Ross (or even Nick Swisher if you want to go big) with the money saved from trading Cargo.
This strategy is of course risky. You are taking known commodities that are producing and trading them for prospects that could flame out. But the flipside is risky as well. Hoping that the current young pitching develops while Cargo and Tulo’s contracts get more expensive could be disastrous as it could lead to overpaying free agent pitchers to try to seize on the Cargo-Tulo prime window. Restocking the pitching prospects will increase the odds that the Rockies can have a rotation of 5 average or above average pitchers. Right now the young pitchers the team is hoping on are: Drew Pomeranz, Juan Nicasio, Christian Friedrich, Chad Bettis, Tyler Matzek, Tyler Anderson, Edwar Cabrera, Tyler Chatwood, and perhaps the #3 pick in the 2013 draft. That is 9 pitchers. A few of those will get hurt. A few of those will underperform (Alex White). Hopefully a few become solid pitchers. But if that crop also had a few out of the group of Randall Delgado, Martin Perez, Taijuan Walker, Danny Hultzen, or James Paxton, I like the odds to develop a young rotation a lot better.
It is clear that the Rockies have a natural handicap in putting together a pitching staff. In the same way the Mariners or Padres would have to overpay an above average hitter, the Rockies will always have to overpay free agent pitchers. The team cannot sit by idly and hope that it hits the jackpot with pitching drafting and developing. Even the best developers of young pitching have a low success rate. The Rockies cannot hope their group of 9 yields a staff. There are a few opportunities to acquire some excellent pitching talent and the organization should begin to look to spend most of its free agent money on position players and acquire all of the young cost controlled pitching it can get its hands on.
Is it scary? Of course. Risky? Yep. But what other choice do the Rockies have?
Loading ...
Loading tweets...
8 comments
Michael
December 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM (UTC -6)
I agree with you that the Rockies have an advantage signing FA position players and a severe disadvantage signing pitchers, and embracing that philosophy could help this franchise in the future but they short term moves you suggest seem poor. You would trade Fowler (3mil salary)for a power pitcher with questionable command (about 4 BB per 9 through the minors), and then spend at least 15 mil a year for Bourn an improvement in the field, not at the plate (less power lower OBP) who could lose that fielding advantage quickly as he is in his 30′s. That isn’t spending money to create wins. You say there are not any pitchers who could help the Rox, I think that is because you are thinking of Run prevention as Pitcher versus Batter in which case you want awesome individual pitchers but run prevention is pitching and defense. Why not focus more on the defense? The Rockies could have targeted pitchers like Paul Malhom or Kevin Corriea. Please stop laughing and think about what guys like this do; they get the ball on the ground and they don’t walk people, they will occasionally get lit up because they allow the ball to be hit but try to think about what the Rockies do have good up the middle defense. Tulo best SS in the game, Rutledge a converted SS with excellent range, 3 OF who could play CF (Fowler Gonzo Colvin). The thinking has got to change from the idea that the Rockies need to become the Giants, they will never develop that kind of pitching they have to much against them but they can still find ways to prevent runs at a winning, maybe someday championship rate.
Colin
December 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM (UTC -6)
I agree with Michael. Defense and young pitching is what took the Rockies deep into the playoffs before, why deviate from that strategy? Yes, young pitching is risky. The article above doesn’t exactly promote confidence in free agent acquisitions either.
Defensively, the Rockies have had success in the past. To prevent runs, they should focus on this aspect and maybe it will have a positive impact not only on our young pitchers who are learning on the job in some cases, but also in the win column.
JD
January 4, 2013 at 11:40 AM (UTC -6)
The fact remains that we do not trust anything we might get in a trade, especially with O’Dowd making the trades.
Kevin Giles
January 9, 2013 at 4:36 PM (UTC -6)
I agree, and it’s refreshing to hear someone else say that they should trade both Fowler and Gonzalez.
They should still draft the best player available, but they need to be more willing to trade offensive prospects for pitching prospects. For example, say for their first round pick this year the best available position player grades out as 98/100 and the best pitcher available grades out as 90/100. The Rockies shouldn’t reach for the pitcher who is clearly not as good as the position player because they can draft the position player and then trade him for a pitching prospect who is presumably better than the 90/100 pitcher. Basically, it all boils down to bringing in as much talent as possible through the draft and latin america (obviously), and then being willing to flip some of the positional talent for pitching talent and then making up for positional deficiencies through free agent signings.
They actually did this with trading Iannetta for Chatwood and then signing Hernandez. That hasn’t worked out perfectly, and of course there is risk involved with trading and signing players, but it generally makes sense to trade an offensive player for pitching and fill that offensive void with a comparable free agent.
Michael
January 9, 2013 at 7:59 PM (UTC -6)
Your example of Iannetta is poor in this case. Iannetta was leaving his rookie contract and his prime (he was 29 when he got traded) also Iannetta was a league average player. Fowler and Cargo are the teams 2nd and 3rd best players. The other problem with your plan to trade for pitching prospects is the risk involved. Pitchers get hurt all the time and furthermore the Rockies track record of developing pitching prospects is about as ugly as it gets. Why throw away the few successes we have for a couple of long shots? Even if your pitching prospects work out you then have the problem of being the Padres, no offense.
Kevin Giles
January 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM (UTC -6)
The risk involved with pitchers, eg they get hurt, is exactly why the team needs to bring in more pitching talent.
The idea behind the trades is simple, really. Trade a position player of, say, 2.0 WAR for pitching. Replace the position player with someone comparable (approx. 2 WAR). The negative position player impact of the trade is neutralized by the free agent signing, and the pitching talent pool has increased. Under this strategy, the team has not lost any wins from position players, and the team has added wins from pitchers.
It’s what happened with Iannetta, and it’s what they should happen with Dex or CarGo.
Kevin Jordan
January 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM (UTC -6)
Michael accurately points out the big flaw with your strategy is that the Rockies have an organization-wide failure to develop young pitchers. This isn’t going to change until the pitching coaches are replaced with people who can. However, risk of injury is unpredictable and shouldn’t be a reason to avoid trades, unless the pitcher’s arm is being held together like Curt Schilling’s ankle. He’s also right that Iannetta was a really bad example, though your theory is sound. By ESPN stats, Iannetta posted a 3.1 WAR in 2011 and they replaced him with Hernandez, who had a 1.1 WAR in 2011. Sure, the trade brought in Chatwood, but he has yet to provide any value and figures to begin 2013 in AAA. Hernandez also coughed up a -1.5 WAR (Iannetta also regressed to 1.2, but still a positive value), which really doesn’t help support your strategy.
Last year, Fowler had a 2.6 WAR and Cargo had a 1.3 WAR. Hell, EY Jr. posted a 1.8. At best, Fowler would fetch one prospect, probably equivalent to Chatwood and can reasonably be replaced by Young. Cargo should fetch much more (his WAR was the result of a -1.9 dWAR due to him dogging it in the field for half the season), but would be much harder to replace.
I agree with your strategy, just not with this current organization. Case in point, what good is building a pitching talent pool when the GM dumps them (Alex White) for relief pitchers (Wilton Lopez) after less than a year and a half?
Jeremy
January 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM (UTC -6)
Yeah, trade Cargo…then I wouldn’t watch any games at all.
And seeing as how this organization has proven they can develop talented pitchers, all we need to do is get the talent in the door, right?
Oh wait, this organization has proven that, time and time again, they can get great talent and fail, fail, and fail some more at developing them into anything special.