Dtwncbad

Trade with Rockies

Recommended Posts

Now that the Rockies and Cardinals are actually “exchanging names” on an Arenado deal, does this mean the Rockies have a different timeline for winning?

Does this mean that a trade for either Marquez or Gray is potentially more feasible now?  (not to be confused with their actual price being lower)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Now that the Rockies and Cardinals are actually “exchanging names” on an Arenado deal, does this mean the Rockies have a different timeline for winning?

Does this mean that a trade for either Marquez or Gray is potentially more feasible now?  (not to be confused with their actual price being lower)

 

Maybe getting rid of Arenado is more about getting out of his salary than trying to sell off everything. Different motivations mean different things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could help. I don't think they're tied together, but the biggest possibility of these opening a deal for the Angels will be contingent on who the Cardinals deal away. They're likely able to offer a good young OF and a good SP prospect or two - something the Angels can't or don't want to part with - and the Rockies will open up some of their infield logjam - making it easier for them to have interest in guys like Rengifo, Fletcher, Thaiss. 

Cardinals could also part with more MLB-ready talent which could affect the availability of Marquez and Gray too. They won't necessarily have to go into a 'rebuild' if the pieces returned are MLB-ready, but then again, the Angels could also offer MLB-ready talent to help tie in with Colorado's new window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arenado is complicated because he has an opt out. If the Rockies are afraid of him leaving, they would be wise to trade him for assets.

And I think that's what they'll end up doing.

If they also decide to trade Story, they probably have a fire sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with them being the division leader, but I wish Houston had stayed in the NL. Wish baseball would put Houston back in the NL, now in the NL West, and swap Colorado to the AL West. 

Colorado would fare better as an AL club with a DH looking to build themselves as an offensive juggernaut. They'll always have a hard time putting together a pitching staff that will complete with annual contenders like the Dodgers and teams with hyper-pitcher-friendly environs like San Diego and San Francisco. Aligns better with divisional travel too, with each 'West' division having an opponent in TX.

Edited by totdprods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

I've thought the same thing.

I don't care what his salary is If they are willing to trade the best 3B in MLB they aren't trying to win now.

If Nolan gets traded yes we should be all over those two

 

Rendon is the best 3rd baseman in MLB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

I've thought the same thing.

I don't care what his salary is If they are willing to trade the best 3B in MLB they aren't trying to win now.

If Nolan gets traded yes we should be all over those two

 

It certainly looks indecisive and not trustworthy.. They rushed to get him on an extension they can presumably afford, then turn around and deal him.

Maybe they feel like LAD have a stranglehold on the NL west for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, totdprods said:

This has nothing to do with them being the division leader, but I wish Houston had stayed in the NL. Wish baseball would put Houston back in the NL, now in the NL West, and swap Colorado to the AL West. 

Colorado would fare better as an AL club with a DH looking to build themselves as an offensive juggernaut. They'll always have a hard time putting together a pitching staff that will complete with annual contenders like the Dodgers and teams with hyper-pitcher-friendly environs like San Diego and San Francisco. Aligns better with divisional travel too, with each 'West' division having an opponent in TX.

I wish baseball re aligned the divisions. How great would it be having all the california teams in one division. The natural rivalries would be incredible. Angels playing the Dodgers and Padres 15-20 times a year A's playing Giants Yankees playing the Mets etc. Would be a great way to revitalize the sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing about the opt out is it has been said Arenado didn’t want the opt out and that was something the Rockies front office suggested be put in. It was literally their front office’s own idea and they made this whole mess themselves. They are literally trying to beat out Baltimore for worst front office in baseball. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GregAlso said:

The funny thing about the opt out is it has been said Arenado didn’t want the opt out and that was something the Rockies front office suggested be put in. It was literally their front office’s own idea and they made this whole mess themselves. They are literally trying to beat out Baltimore for worst front office in baseball. 

Maybe they gave him the opt out to help give him more incentive to play better and help themselves if he did to get out of paying him that much money in the long haul and paying for his decline. Instead of thinking they're dumb, it could be the best of both worlds at the end of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, totdprods said:

This has nothing to do with them being the division leader, but I wish Houston had stayed in the NL. Wish baseball would put Houston back in the NL, now in the NL West, and swap Colorado to the AL West. 

Colorado would fare better as an AL club with a DH looking to build themselves as an offensive juggernaut. They'll always have a hard time putting together a pitching staff that will complete with annual contenders like the Dodgers and teams with hyper-pitcher-friendly environs like San Diego and San Francisco. Aligns better with divisional travel too, with each 'West' division having an opponent in TX.

I honestly was surprised when they evened out the leagues, because the AL West already did a lot of travel vs. the NL West. The Dodgers longest in division flight was the 2 hr 15 min to Denver, versus the Angels two three hour flights to Seattle and also to Dallas.

I never agreed with the move from the AL to the NL for the Brewers, as it's not like there weren't rivalries in the newer AL Central. The whole way expansion was handled in the 1990's was weird. Three new NL teams? One in the AL in Tampa? Go from 12 NL teams in 1992 to 16 in 1998? Both Colorado and Arizona should've been considered for the AL.

They can fix this if they expand to 32, 16 in each league, 4 teams per division.

AL West: Angels, Mariners, A's, Portland Expansion (or D'Backs).

AL Central: Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Twins

AL South: Rangers, Astros, Royals, Rockies

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Blue Jays

 

NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, D'Backs (or Portland Expansion)

NL Central: Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals, Reds

NL South: Braves, Marlins, Nationals*, Nashville or Tampa Rays (Unless they move to Montreal, then it would be an Expansion)

NL East: Pirates, Mets, Phillies, Montreal Expansion (or Rays)

 

New expansion is Montreal, Portland, and Nashville, with the Rays moving to one of these cities and the other two getting the expansion clubs. Charleston or a Carolina city or even a Virginia city can also be considered in lieu of one of the two east coast, and I suppose Vegas and Salt Lake can be considered instead of Portland.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, totdprods said:

This has nothing to do with them being the division leader, but I wish Houston had stayed in the NL. Wish baseball would put Houston back in the NL, now in the NL West, and swap Colorado to the AL West. 

Colorado would fare better as an AL club with a DH looking to build themselves as an offensive juggernaut. They'll always have a hard time putting together a pitching staff that will complete with annual contenders like the Dodgers and teams with hyper-pitcher-friendly environs like San Diego and San Francisco. Aligns better with divisional travel too, with each 'West' division having an opponent in TX.

That last part especially. Just from a travel point of view, the divisions are goofy as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hubs said:

I honestly was surprised when they evened out the leagues, because the AL West already did a lot of travel vs. the NL West. The Dodgers longest in division flight was the 2 hr 15 min to Denver, versus the Angels two three hour flights to Seattle and also to Dallas.

I never agreed with the move from the AL to the NL for the Brewers, as it's not like there weren't rivalries in the newer AL Central. The whole way expansion was handled in the 1990's was weird. Three new NL teams? One in the AL in Tampa? Go from 12 NL teams in 1992 to 16 in 1998? Both Colorado and Arizona should've been considered for the AL.

They can fix this if they expand to 32, 16 in each league, 4 teams per division.

AL West: Angels, Mariners, A's, Portland Expansion (or D'Backs).

AL Central: Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Twins

AL South: Rangers, Astros, Royals, Rockies

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Blue Jays

 

NL West: Dodgers, Giants, Padres, D'Backs (or Portland Expansion)

NL Central: Cubs, Brewers, Cardinals, Reds

NL South: Braves, Marlins, Nationals*, Nashville or Tampa Rays (Unless they move to Montreal, then it would be an Expansion)

NL East: Pirates, Mets, Phillies, Montreal Expansion (or Rays)

 

New expansion is Montreal, Portland, and Nashville, with the Rays moving to one of these cities and the other two getting the expansion clubs. Charleston or a Carolina city or even a Virginia city can also be considered in lieu of one of the two east coast, and I suppose Vegas and Salt Lake can be considered instead of Portland.

 

 

If they make a team in portlamd, i hope its north of the river, where the hooters is. Which is in washington.

Just so we can put the "they arent even in LA" shit to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

Maybe they gave him the opt out to help give him more incentive to play better and help themselves if he did to get out of paying him that much money in the long haul and paying for his decline. Instead of thinking they're dumb, it could be the best of both worlds at the end of the day. 

Smart? Nope. The opt out limits his trade value and the value of the contract to the opt out date. Since they are trading him less than one year later they seriously hamstrung themselves on the trade market. Player opt outs are usually only given if a player negotiated for it and only benefit the player, never the club. If your logic held up then more teams would be doing it to improve player performance. That is such a stretch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, totdprods said:

This has nothing to do with them being the division leader, but I wish Houston had stayed in the NL. Wish baseball would put Houston back in the NL, now in the NL West, and swap Colorado to the AL West. 

Colorado would fare better as an AL club with a DH looking to build themselves as an offensive juggernaut. They'll always have a hard time putting together a pitching staff that will complete with annual contenders like the Dodgers and teams with hyper-pitcher-friendly environs like San Diego and San Francisco. Aligns better with divisional travel too, with each 'West' division having an opponent in TX.

Trout would definitely have 50+ home runs every year if that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GregAlso said:

Smart? Nope. The opt out limits his trade value and the value of the contract to the opt out date. Since they are trading him less than one year later they seriously hamstrung themselves on the trade market. Player opt outs are usually only given if a player negotiated for it and only benefit the player, never the club. If your logic held up then more teams would be doing it to improve player performance. That is such a stretch. 

Teams do give opt outs. Both club option and player options. Most players the year before free agency do well because it gives the player an incentive to do well. Likely an opt out is similar. Stras had an opt out used it and cashed in. Teams aren't usually stupid. Contracts are negotiated not just demanded and the team has to sign it or the player has to sign it. I am not sure if you've dealt in business contracts before. But you come to a mutually beneficial agreement, usually. But who knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Teams do give opt outs. Both club option and player options. Most players the year before free agency do well because it gives the player an incentive to do well. Likely an opt out is similar. Stras had an opt out used it and cashed in. Teams aren't usually stupid. Contracts are negotiated not just demanded and the team has to sign it or the player has to sign it. I am not sure if you've dealt in business contracts before. But you come to a mutually beneficial agreement, usually. But who knows. 

I have negotiated contracts but this isn’t an as hominem argument. When the value of a contract a with player opt outs is determined it always, always makes the contract less valuable. Simply think of the situation, if the player is playing poorly he will opt in to get more money. If the player is playing well he will opt out and get more money. The advantage is always to the player. If the player is doing well the team wants to keep him but now has to pay more. If he’s playing poorly they want to get rid of him or pay him less and they aren’t able to. Arguing that player opt outs are ever advantage to the team is just silly. It was reported he didn’t want it and they suggested it, it was a win/win for him so why not. The Rockies are not well run. I don’t follow them closely but the baseball analysts I follow constantly make fun of their decision making process. They just don’t make long term decisions well at all. This is a case in point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the supposed (I take this with a grain of salt) proposed names from Morosi included Carlos Martinez and Matt Carpenter in return for Arenado.

This could simply be a case of the Rockies knowing that Nolan will leave at the end of the 2021 season and making the decision to sell him for MLB assets (and maybe a prospect or two) so that they can still compete with the rest of their core (Story, Blackmon, Gray, Marquez, et al) by adding Martinez in their rotation/bullpen and play Carpenter at 3B (or alternatively trade Murphy and play Matt there). Not too long ago Martinez was a 3 WAR starter and Carpenter had a 5 WAR season so the Rockies could simply be making an addition by subtraction play here.

I could also see the Angels facilitating a deal between the Rockies and Cardinals as a third party to a trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 11:09 AM, Bronson said:

Man could you imagine being Rockies fans. You have some good pieces around one of the best players in baseball. You just locked him up long term only to trade him the very next year....

 

Makes no sense.

would be like us trading Trout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.