Jeez, isn't Chatwood their top pitching prospect?

Behind Garret Richards, I'd put Chatwood as #2.

This is disappointing but hardly surprising, as the Rockies never quite seemed to realize what they had in Iannetta, i.e., a good hitter. Don’t know much about Chatwood; is he a reasonable haul?

The Rockies had the same issues with Iannetta as the Angels had with Mike Napoli. Thus they are signing Ramon Hernandez - for two years and $6.4 million, according to Jon Heyman - and moving Iannetta for Chatwood.

Chatwood, 22, is an interesting case. His big issue at the moment is (not surprisingly) location, but he also didn't put up big strikeout totals in the minors despite having quality stuff (mid-90s four-seamer, low 90s two-seamer, big curve). If he steps it up a bit he could be a solid middle-of-the-rotation guy, but I don't have a really good feeling about him.

-- MWE

The Rockies had the same issues with Iannetta as the Angels had with Mike Napoli.

Oh, boy.

Iannetta is kind of a poor man's Mike Napoli. About the same career OBP with a little less pop. Jerked around by his original team, as mentioned above by Tom Nawrocki and Mike Emeigh. The Angels must not be terribly enamored by Chatwood -- he's their #2 pitching prospect and they just traded him for a single guaranteed season of a catcher who is not quite as good as the catcher they didn't like and traded away a year ago.

Of course, this is a new regime and you have to assume a sane GM wouldn't have traded Napoli in the first place. So now you've sort-of replaced him, but at what cost? Figure a 21-year old starter with MLB experience could bring a slightly better haul through trade, but I wasn't the one making the phone calls to test the market. The trade seems OK for the Angels if you're assuming that Chatwood's never going to improve much from where he's at.

But just for fun, Chatwood's BB-ref comps through age 21 include John Garland and Trevor Cahill. Imagine trading away 6 years of Cahill or Garland for one year of a slightly above average catcher. Yowza!

Is Rancho Cucamonga one of those high HR parks? I'm somewhat surprised to learn Chatwood isn't a sinker guy as the Rockies like that, and it sort of matches the very low HR rates in his minor league stats. He didn't have an exceptional groundball rate last year with the Angels, though.

I wondered if the Rockies shouldn't have kept Iannetta and put Rosario up for trade while everyone's still drooling over his potential. You take the risk of losing what he could be if he really does come through, but you could get a better player back in return for him while still having someone to cover the position.

Seems like catcher and possibly center (if they move CarGo back and if anyone's still high on Fowler) were the only areas in the org approaching any depth that they can use for trades. (Middle relief isn't bad, but I figure they wouldn't get much in return.)

The Rockies had the same issues with Iannetta as the Angels had with Mike Napoli.

I can't wait until he hits .300/.400/.600 and leads the Diamondbacks to the 2012 World Series.

Ianetta was a white whale of mine for the Red Sox (as was Napoli). Ah well... Can't wait till he gets put at 1B because he's not considered to have enough glove for C...

Chatwood has been continually too young for his leagues; last year he would probably have been best-served as being a junior in college -- he was in the same UCLA recruiting class as Gerrit Cole and Trevor Bauer, and I'd have to say, despite the difficulty (impossibility?) in judging these things against such different levels of competition, that Cole and Bauer were both more advanced than Chatwood was last year (and both have better stuff). At best, he should have been in AA, but the entirety of his season was spent in AAA and the majors.

I think Jon Garland is a great comp for him, assuming things break right. I could also see him just not getting it together. His two-seamer is live but he lacks both command and control, and his secondary pitches don't blow me away.

I think he's a decent guy to take a gamble on, and may be relatively well-suited for Coors. But I think he has a lot of honing to do and would be best off doing it in AA or AAA for now.

I'm somewhat surprised to learn Chatwood isn't a sinker guy as the Rockies like that, and it sort of matches the very low HR rates in his minor league stats.

Chatwood had a 47% GB rate in the majors last year, which is above average. His GB rate through AA was quite high (52% - 64%). So, it's possible that he is a groundballer that fits Coors. If he doesn't fit the Rockies' normal profile, is it possible that they acquired him to include in a trade for a more experienced starting pitcher (such as Wandy Rodriguez, whom the Rockies showed interest in this past summer)?

Wow, these are both kinda baffling moves. I guess it could work out but I still don't get it. If a fanboy proposed this, he'd get about ten responses of "why would the Rockies be stupid enough to trade Ianetta to replace him with Hernandez" and "no way the Angels are dumb enough to trade Chatwood for Ianetta when they can just get Hernandez."

So in a way, its kinda makes sense.

I hope Scioscia blessed this. That would be a high price to pay for a guy to back up Mathis. Especially with Conger almost ready to go.

I am in disbelief that the words "Jeff" and "Mathis" have not yet been used in this thread.

Dammit, #12!

Ianetta at Coors: 863 PAs; 41 Doubles, 37 Home Runs, .262/.377/.492

Ianetta away: 870 PAs; 31 Doubles, 26 Home Runs, .208/.338/.369

Wow, these are both kinda baffling moves. I guess it could work out but I still don't get it. If a fanboy proposed this, he'd get about ten responses of "why would the Rockies be stupid enough to trade Ianetta to replace him with Hernandez" and "no way the Angels are dumb enough to trade Chatwood for Ianetta when they can just get Hernandez."

Interesting the Angels didn't just sign Hernandez.

The Rockies' deal w/Hernandez is supposedly 2 yrs $6.5M, whereas they had Ianneta for $3.80M for 2012 (incl. the .25M buyout on a $5M club option for 2013). Hernandez is old, but that's an interesting swap, esp as it gives them a young arm.

So Conger is a no go?

BB-Ref says Iannetta has the right to void that 2013 club option if he is traded.

Ianetta at Coors: 863 PAs; 41 Doubles, 37 Home Runs, .262/.377/.492
Ianetta away: 870 PAs; 31 Doubles, 26 Home Runs, .208/.338/.369

That away line would represent a huge offensive improvement at catcher for the Angels.

If a fanboy proposed this, he'd get about ten responses of "why would the Rockies be stupid enough to trade Ianetta to replace him with Hernandez"

Actually, this seems like a pretty clever switcheroo to me.

Ianetta's actually a decent defensive catcher. He won't be playing any 1st base like Napoli.
The Rockies have two catchers, Rosario and Pacheco, almost ready to start in MLB, so likely Hernandez gets one year as a part-time starter then one year as the veteran backup to Rosario, with Pacheco as a #3 catcher/utility guy.

If the Angels are willing to do this and Scioscia is one board with playing the poor defensive (by rep) Iannetta, why not just go with Conger instead? Are they not high on Conger or just think he could use a season at AAA? Anyway, it should be a nice upgrade for the Angels as long as Scioscia starts him 120 games or so.

This Reds fan says thank you to Ramon Hernandez. He had a nice run in Cincy.

This goes down as most hilarious trade of the offseason, right? The good news for the Angels is it would appear DiPoto is firmly in charge.

Great deal for the Rockies.

So, the Angels trade Mike Napoli and a top pitching prospect for the ridiculous Vernon Wells contract and a guy not as good as Napoli. Good job!

Chatwood's got heavy & interesting movement on his stuff; it's just that he either doesn't know where it's going, or that he constantly nibbles. I felt like it was the latter last year.

Ianetta at Coors: 863 PAs; 41 Doubles, 37 Home Runs, .262/.377/.492
Ianetta away: 870 PAs; 31 Doubles, 26 Home Runs, .208/.338/.369
That away line would represent a huge offensive improvement at catcher for the Angels.

Should also probably point out for the millionth time that most Rockies players show a Coors hangover effect, i.e. their away numbers are significantly worse than expected. This goes away when they go to another team, so you can't just use Ianetta's away numbers to predict how he will fair for the Angels.

Should also probably point out for the millionth time that most Rockies players show a Coors hangover effect, i.e. their away numbers are significantly worse than expected. This goes away when they go to another team, so you can't just use Ianetta's away numbers to predict how he will fair for the Angels.

Is this an actual study someone did?

Chatwood's got heavy & interesting movement on his stuff; it's just that he either doesn't know where it's going, or that he constantly nibbles. I felt like it was the latter last year.

I haven't seen him pitch; the only thing I have to go on is that his BB rates were pretty high in the minors as well.

Is Rancho Cucamonga one of those high HR parks?

Not really, it's about average.

-- MWE

Is this an actual study someone did?

Yes, I think it was MGL, I could be wrong. It came up a lot when Holliday was traded.

EDIT: It was MGL, link here. Key part from MGL:

For Rockies 93 to 01, we get a Rockies road wOBA of .309 and a non-Rockies road wOBA of .324. There is a 1.05 ratio and a 15 point difference.

That is in 9857 PA (adding up all the “lesser of the two PA"). The standard error for the difference between 2 independent samples (don’t know if they are independent - I think they are) of sample size 9857 is 7 points. So the difference is significant at the .05 level (2 SD).

There seems to be a road effect.

From 02-08, the humidor years, it is .308/.289, a difference of 19 points for 5922 PA. With a standard error of 9 points, that is also significant at the .05 level. The humidor has not seemed to get rid of the road effect.

Interestingly, I did the same thing for Arizona players, who also play in a somewhat extreme environment - hot, dry, and at a fairly high altitude. They were .302/.319, a difference of 17 points in favor of when they played for ARI, from 98-08, also significant at better than the .05 level.

I also looked at TB and OAK, two sea-level teams, also for 98-08.

They were, TB, .309/.316, in other words, they did better on the road as a TB player, and OAK, .338/.341, also better as an OAK player.

Randy, thanks for digging that up.

Chatwood's got heavy & interesting movement on his stuff; it's just that he either doesn't know where it's going, or that he constantly nibbles. I felt like it was the latter last year.

I agree with Matt insofar as I saw him pitch a few times last year (TV, not at the park) and he did seem to lack confidence in his ability to get guys out with his plus pitches - thus he nibbled. A GB% that good for a 20 y/o starter should probably yield more in return than one cost controlled season of a solid if unspectacular catcher. However, Ianetta has a great ISO OBP and that should help this VERY impatient team. I almost hope that this ushers in a Ianetta/Conger platoon for the immediate future. Conger is a switch hitter that hits better from the right side and Ianetta crushes lefties.

Of course, that makes the trade even worse in that you just traded a projectable back of the rotation starter who is 21 for a 30% high OBP catcher?

Eek - I'm going to stop thinking about it and just re-circle December 12 on my calendar. I am working on legislation to re-name that day "Non-Tender of Jeff Mathis Day".

Getting a very good, young and inexpensive arm for one year of a run of the mill catcher seems like a great gamble for Colorado. They sign a reasonable replacement and have two prospects coming up. A well thought out and executed plan! Not a fan of this for the Angels as I think not having Coors home numbers will make Ianetta look very average, at best. Small short term gain but the price was too high.