Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Denver Post: Helton seeks quick deal

Helton was asked Saturday night whether he has provided the Rockies a deadline or - as major-league sources indicated - was prepared to veto any deal in the future if this trade was not consummated soon.

“That’s between me and the Rockies,” Helton said. “But they know how I feel.”

To the question of whether he would have interest in going to Boston, Helton answered: “Yes.”
...
While an initial framework has been established on the $90.1 million remaining on Helton’s contract - the Rockies would be responsible for a little more than $40 million as it stands - Helton’s understandable desire for a speedy conclusion is also an important factor.
...
Negotiations are expected to resume Monday or Tuesday when Rockies general manager Dan O’Dowd returns after tending to a family matter out of town. The Red Sox’s posture Saturday was to slightly downplay the talks, stressing a lack of urgency because they like their current lineup.

However, a major-league source who has spoken directly with the Red Sox said Saturday night there is still a good chance the deal gets done if Boston can get Helton for less than $10 million annually over the next six seasons.

Rocky Mountain News: Helton to Red Sox is far from a done deal (Sunday update)

NTNgod Posted: January 28, 2007 at 09:27 AM | 81 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox, rockies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: January 28, 2007 at 09:39 AM (#2287518)
geez, I didn't think the Rockies would eat that much of the contract. I'll wait now till I see what we are giving them...
   2. NTNgod Posted: January 28, 2007 at 10:34 AM (#2287526)
Bill Madden at the NY Daily News: Red Sox closing in on deal for Helton
According to one source, the Rockies have agreed to eat approximately half of the $91.1 million that Helton is guaranteed over the next five years. In addition, the Red Sox are insisting that disappointing and oft-injured righthander Matt Clement, who is owed $9.5 million next season, and third baseman Mike Lowell ($9 million) be included in the deal.
...
"The essence of the trade is in place," said the source. "But they're haggling over Boston prospects."

In addition to Clement and Lowell, the Red Sox would probably include righthander Julian Tavarez in the deal, but the Rockies are insistent on getting at least one of Boston's top righthanded pitching prospects, St. John's product Craig Hansen, Manny Delcarmen or Daniel Bard.
   3. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: January 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM (#2287527)
Clement is basically dead weight at this point, right? If the Red Sox get the Rockies to eat 40 million and get them to take Clement as well, they are getting a very good deal for themselves. I don't know why the Angels aren't in on this if the Rockies are willing to eat so much money.
   4. NTNgod Posted: January 28, 2007 at 10:53 AM (#2287528)
The article indicates that Helton would have vetoed a trade to the Angels; the Braves are on his short list to approve, and I suspect some of the other Southern teams would be as well, given his background.
   5. Xander Posted: January 28, 2007 at 10:54 AM (#2287529)
Nice job Madden. Too bad Bard is ineligible to be traded as a player to be named now, or later.
   6. SouthSideRyan Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM (#2287530)
So the Red Sox take on ~30M in salary over a 6 year period?
   7. NTNgod Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:06 AM (#2287531)
Obviously a Helton deal for Clement/Lowell deal would be a no-go for Colorado, unless good prospects are involved.

Factor in the money kicked in for Helton's salary, and they'd only save about $30mil over 6 years.

Considering the backlash a Helton deal would likely engender, it certainly wouldn't be worth it for the Rockies....
   8. MSI Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:20 AM (#2287532)
Yeah this deal is a ripoff. C'mon Rockies don't be pushovers to the overspenders.
   9. NTNgod Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:30 AM (#2287534)
If it truly worked out to 6/$30m (and I doubt it will, unless some good prospects change hands), I'd think even the budget-constrained Braves would consider putting an offer on the table...
   10. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: January 28, 2007 at 12:33 PM (#2287537)
In addition to Clement and Lowell, the Red Sox would probably include righthander Julian Tavarez in the deal

How does this make sense? Is he really saying that all 3 guys would go to the Rockies? They would be taking on $21.6 million in 2007 salary from those guys alone, while Helton will only make $16.6 million this year. Add to that the fact that the Rockies will likely be paying about half of Helton's salary, and the Rockies would look to be adding $13-14 million in commitments for this year. Am I reading this right?
   11. jyjjy Posted: January 28, 2007 at 12:57 PM (#2287539)
Why would Colorado do this? Does it make sense from any perspective?
Helton is owed 90 million over the next 5 years(including the buy out for 2012.) If they agree to pay half of the contract and take on Clement and Lowell(neither of which they should actually want) that's 63.5 million dollars. If the prospect/s they get in return are actually good you have to add in the arbitration costs which would bring the money back up to the original 90 million or more.
I would think the package to commit this sort of insanity would have to start with Papelbon and include another of the Sox top 3 prospects.
   12. Rich Posted: January 28, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2287554)
Madden's column would appear to reflect the spin that Red Sox sources have put on the negotiations.
   13. Sexy Lizard Posted: January 28, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2287556)
This is another in the tradition of overly complicated TheoDeals that seem unlikely to come off. The difference here being that there is only one other team involved.

OTOH, this reminds me of the Hampton to Atlanta trade. Maybe they can get the Marlins to pay some of Helton's salary.
   14. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: January 28, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2287558)
"This is another in the tradition of overly complicated TheoDeals that seem unlikely to come off. The difference here being that there is only one other team involved."

Theo always gets an "A" for an under-discussed part of his job, which is to keep the Red Sox in the headlines. Hence the protracted nature of almost every single Red Sox deal, regardless of whether it comes to fruition. Boston fans demand press coverage or they'll send out the Dirt Dogs' black helicopters.

If I were a Red Sox fan, I'd rather he spend his time doing stuff like this than doing the other parts of his job, at which he definitely doesn't get an "A". Of course, I suppose you could argue that the time he spends on this kind of stuff ("we're trying to trade Manny -- for the 15th time!") takes away time he could spend learning to distinguish good prospects from bad ones, or figuring out how to put together a bullpen.
   15. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 28, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2287560)
The Todd Helton thing has been discussed to DEATH in Therapy for the past two years or so.

I think the only concensus we came up with was this:

Colonel Tigh: Worth thinking about
Adama: Definitely worth thinking about.
   16. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 28, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2287565)
I would think the package to commit this sort of insanity would have to start with Papelbon and include another of the Sox top 3 prospects.

Colonel Tigh: Not worth thinking about
Adama: Eat Shhiiiittteeee and die
   17. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 28, 2007 at 04:44 PM (#2287583)
Red Sox fans can't possibly think the Rockies will eat half of Helton's contract, and take back Clement and Lowell, without getting at least a couple of top prospects/young players in return, right?
   18. MSI Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2287599)
Stingy Red Sox think they can rip someone off right in front of their face. What arrogance. Rockies should walk away or ask for Ellsbury and Hansen. Helton is no push over with the bat.
   19. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2287605)
Red Sox fans can't possibly think the Rockies will eat half of Helton's contract, and take back Clement and Lowell, without getting at least a couple of top prospects/young players in return, right?

Lowell is a positive asset, Clement is a negative asset.
   20. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:32 PM (#2287607)
"Lowell is a positive asset, Clement is a negative asset."

I don't think Lowell will be an asset next year unless he has another absurdly good defensive year, I think his bat is about gone. I guess Colorado could probably revive it a bit.
   21. MSI Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:46 PM (#2287612)
The Red Sox are asking the Rockies to eat 40 million, a couple of bad contracts in their failed projects, and are haggling over not to give up their 8th and 10th best prospect, to get a guy with a first-half HOF career with ungodly OBP's and still decent power? It's a joke. Rockies should be demanding a top prospect, an 8th prospect or so, and maybe those other crap players if they are going to pay 45-50 million. The likes of Bucholz and Ellsbury haven't even been sneezed at, and they are defending the right to keep Hansen and Declarmen on top of their farm system depth. Jeez.
   22. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:53 PM (#2287615)
I would veto half or most of these proposals Boston's purportedly making if they happened in the fantasy league I commish. One can only hope that this is a lot of message board innuendo.

No way any team considers paying another to play Helton while bringing back expensive wastes. Even if Lowell is a positive asset, he's a poor 1B for a team with Atkins entrenched at 3B.

The only positive in all of this [Note, if I could vote for the Sox to go 0-162 next year, I would--no offense. I can't imagine Sox fans cheer for the Jays much either.] would be for the Sox to somehow get Helton without giving up Lowell, for Youklis (likely better than Helton sooner than we'd think) to end up on the bench, and for Hinske to be back on the Jays (He's far better in the OF than is Stairs, he's lefty-hitting, and he's a credible 3B compared to Macdonald and Hattig and Clayton on a team with a purportedly brittle starting 3B).
   23. plink Posted: January 28, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2287617)
Todd Helton's 2006 road OPS: 781
Mike Lowell's 2006 road OPS: 866
   24. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2287623)
Lowell also posted a .739 OPS in the second half last year and a 77 OPS+ in 2005. I'll take Helton's bat for the long term.
   25. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:01 PM (#2287624)
Lol @ the feigned outrage. You guys don't care about the Rockies. You just are just pissed that you don't get to rip teams off.

And all these deals are just "proposed" deals anyway. The Yankees ACTAULLY get to rip teams off IN REAL LIFE. I mean, they got what, 7 prospects for two corpses this off-season?
   26. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2287625)
plink, I did something similar to that with Chris Woodward when he was the starting SS for the Jays v. Jeter, before Jeter evolved from replacement to average level defence. Needless to say, Woodward looked good, but that was only one year.

Going forward, no doubt whom I'd take first, salary ignored (And if the rumours are true apparently Boston's got the same scenario).
   27. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:07 PM (#2287630)
Going forward, no doubt whom I'd take first, salary ignored (And if the rumours are true apparently Boston's got the same scenario).

The question here is not Helton vs. Lowell. My tiny Asian dick could have told you the answer to that one. The question was "Is Mike Lowell worthless and useless", and the answer to that is no.
   28. Johnny Tuttle Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:10 PM (#2287632)
To the Rockies? The answer to that is likely yes unless you think Atkins turns back into a pumpkin before ST.
   29. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:11 PM (#2287635)
It's not as if they cna't flip Lowell off for something else.
   30. MSI Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:12 PM (#2287636)
I'd argue that Helton's AAV isn't that bad. His power is likely to rebound and his OBP and good strikeout rate ensure that he'll still be able to hit, and with perhaps improved power, over the next several years. I think one reason for the poor road OPS away from Coors, aside from his health issues which are huge, is that when you are used to playing in an environment like that, you can't adjust right away in a sea-level one. I noticed when the Jays came back from their series in Colorado last year, they slumped BIG TIME in the next series in terms of hitting, because they came back to hitting by the lake, within a couple of days. Back to the original point, 5 years may be a bit much, but how much would Helton get his offseason anyway? 5 years/60 million? 4 years/ 60 million? In this market, he's a 14 AAV hitter being paid 18 AAV, is that really that much of a difference? And the Red SOx want to only pay 9 AAV!
   31. MSI Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2287643)
What would they do with Manny if the trade goes through? Keep him too? They'd still have Hinske, Coco Crisp, and Wily Mo Pena and Alex Cora as backups.

Also, obviously Helton's AAV is really bad for the Rockies who have a 50 million payroll. But at some point it might be worth it to keep him for a bit and at least his value may go up. They are just not that good a team and having an extra 10 million breathing room while losing Helton is a meh move. Plus, its evern worse if they eat Clement's and Lowell's contract.
   32. Mister High Standards Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:25 PM (#2287644)
I can't imagine the deal that ends up getting done, and it seems like one will... will be anything like what is being proposed. Sounds to me like the JD Drew 2@15 deal.
   33. Stinky Pile of Neifi Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:30 PM (#2287649)
I hear 'My Tiny Asian Dick' is opening for Nugent this year at the Illinois State Fair.
   34. J. Michael Neal Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:38 PM (#2287656)
I really wish there was a way the Tigers could get in on this disaster.
   35. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 28, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2287664)
"Lowell has an absurdly good defensive year every year."

No he doesn't. The year before he won the gold glove he had the worst UZR in the league. His ZR, RF, and DPs (!) were all career highs last year.

"And he hit fine last year, having a typical Lowell year."

He put up a 106 OPS+ last year. The year before he put up a 77 OPS+, the year before a 127 OPS+. The last time he had a typical Lowell year was 2001. Not that typical.

"Why do you just make this #### up? It makes you look like an idiot."

You haven't made a factual statement yet today. I just hope you don't burst into flames like Richard Pryor trying to cook up that crack.
   36. bibigon Posted: January 28, 2007 at 07:01 PM (#2287670)
Guys - I think the Lowell, Tavarez, and Clement parts of the deal are how the Rockies are going to pay half the contract, or at least much of it. If there is anything to this, then it'll be something like Lowell, Clement, Tavarez, and Delcarmen for Helton and $25M or so of his deal. That way, the Rockies are indeed effectively covering half of Helton's salary, and getting those three players in the process.
   37. MSI Posted: January 28, 2007 at 07:11 PM (#2287675)
There is 90 million left on the deal bibigon. Paying 25 would leave 65, not that I think that's still a good deal for the sox, but they won't him on the cheap. You're right though, it makes no sense to pay a whopping 40-50 million and get 1, maybe 2 good prospects.
   38. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 28, 2007 at 07:11 PM (#2287676)
"CP, are you trying to sound like a moron?"

Where's your response to my post about his defense? I expect some sort of rebuttal. Or do you just forget about your assinine statements once they've been proven wrong.

"His career OPS+ is 109. Last year, he put up a 106. And you are belligerently insisting that he didn't have a typical year with the bat. What, he has to hit +109 to have a typical year."

Belligerently insisting? Really? Of course 106 is close to 109. Lowell hasn't hit like that in 5 years, that's all I was getting at. His career OPS+ is 109, he hasn't gotten there by consistently putting up OPS+s in the 105-115 range. Anyway, back to the original point, Lowell sucked in 2005 at the plate, had a good first half and then went back to hitting like Dustin Pedroia in the second half of 06. It's not certain of course, but I think it's pretty reasonable to look at Lowell and think his days as a useful offensive player are pretty much over.
   39. bibigon Posted: January 28, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2287692)
There is 90 million left on the deal bibigon. Paying 25 would leave 65, not that I think that's still a good deal for the sox, but they won't him on the cheap. You're right though, it makes no sense to pay a whopping 40-50 million and get 1, maybe 2 good prospects.


Paying $25M, along with taking Clement, Lowell, and Tavarez' salaries would leave around $45M - that was my point. The Red Sox would be taking on only about half of Helton's salary effectively.
   40. Raskolnikov Posted: January 28, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2287696)
Giving up Delcarmen would be the only significant piece on the Red Sox end, Theo would be nuts to pass up this opportunity.

If I'm the Yankees, I get on the phone to Denver right now and see how I can hijack Helton to NY.
   41. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: January 28, 2007 at 08:14 PM (#2287702)
To the Rockies? The answer to that is likely yes unless you think Atkins turns back into a pumpkin before ST.

Not that this seals the deal, but if Helton goes, it does makes some sense for the Rockies to take Lowell, as Atkins could move to 1B. Lowell plays 3rd and gives Stewart another year or two to improve. Of course, the party line here would be to find a cheaper stopgap at 3rd if the deal could be made w/o Lowell. also of course, does O'Dowd follow party lines?
   42. bibigon Posted: January 28, 2007 at 08:17 PM (#2287705)
Giving up Delcarmen would be the only significant piece on the Red Sox end, Theo would be nuts to pass up this opportunity.


I'm not certain that Delcarmen isn't a better relief prospect than Hansen at this point.
   43. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 28, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2287707)
Somebody needs to give Koshansky a chance. Guy hit 31 homers at Tulsa with 18 coming on the road so no "inflation factor" there. Decent idea of the strike zone. He's older (26 in May), but he merits getting at bats in the bigs.
   44. Boots Day Posted: January 28, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2287713)
Lowell has virtually no value to the Rockies. I would hope that either the Rox pay part of Helton's contract or take Lowell, but not both. I'd rather jump Stewart from AA to the majors than pay a dime for Lowell, especially since the Rockies seem to think they won't be ready to contend in 2007.
   45. Hugh Jorgan Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:17 PM (#2287755)
If this comes off,
Youk
Drew
Ortiz
Manny
Helton
Tek
Lugo
Pedroia
Crisp
That's 1000+ runs easy for the season, unfortunately for Sox fans the pen will blow 25-35 saves and they'll lose alot of 8-7 games.
   46. Hugh Jorgan Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:17 PM (#2287756)
If this comes off,
Youk
Drew
Ortiz
Manny
Helton
Tek
Lugo
Pedroia
Crisp
That's 1000+ runs easy for the season, unfortunately for Sox fans the pen will blow 25-35 saves and they'll lose alot of 8-7 games.
   47. Hugh Jorgan Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:18 PM (#2287757)
Bugger, sorry about the double post, it's coming from Australia and things can be a bit slow here....
   48. Cowboy Popup Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:30 PM (#2287758)
"He hit better than that 2 years ago. In fact, his 2 most productive years were 2003 and 2004."

I'm starting to think you're just stupid.

I didn't say he doesn't normally hit that well. I said he hasn't hit like that (his 2006) in 5 years. He has hit better and worse over that time. But the last time he put up a 106 OPS+ was 5 years ago. And since you called it a typical year, implying that he normally hits like that, which he doesn't, and your an obnoxious jackass, I was happy to give you a hard time.
   49. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: January 28, 2007 at 11:40 PM (#2287760)
Why don't you two just bookmark the post, make some embarassing bet about it and move on so the rest of us don't have to hear about it?
   50. RobertMachemer Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:10 AM (#2287782)
That's 1000+ runs easy for the season,
I think you're assuming that the lineup stays healthy all year (which is a big assumption).

Games played:
Player   '06  '05  '04   
Ortiz    151  159  150
Youkilis 147   87* 112*
Drew     146   72  145
Helton   145  144  154
Pedroia  142* 117* 101**
Ramirez  130  152  152
Lugo     122  158  157
Crisp    105  145  139
Varitek  103  133  137

* = minors and majors
** = minors and college 


I'm not saying that they can't score 1000 runs, but it presumes not only a good collection of hitters, but a healthy collection as well.

Two, how good a collection of hitters does one need?

2003 Red Sox scored 961 runs. Here are the OPS+s of that team, plus the career OPS+s of the projected 2007 team:

'03         '03       '07        career       
player      OPS+      player     OPS+        advantage?
Varitek     120       Varitek    105         2003
Millar      110       Helton     143             2007
Walker       95       Pedroia     44         2003
Mueller     140       Youkilis   107         2003
Garciaparra 121       Lugo        92         2003
Ramirez     160       Ramirez    157         2003
Damon        94       Crisp       97             2007
Nixon       149       Drew       133         2003
Ortiz       144       Ortiz      135         2003 


Obviously, there are some limitations to this method -- I don't think anyone expects Pedroia to hit for a 44 OPS+ all year (or for him to keep the job over Alex Cora, career OPS+ of 75, for long if he does). And Ortiz has been better than his "135" for four straight years now. It's not a fine prognosticative tool, but it does provide a decent blunt means of observing that that 2003 team was REALLY good offensively. The 2007 team, even if it is completely healthy, would hardly be ashamed to not hit quite as well. And, again, that 2003 team didn't score 1000 runs either.

unfortunately for Sox fans the pen will blow 25-35 saves and they'll lose alot of 8-7 games.
Here are all the teams in the last 5 years which have blown 25-35 saves:

2006: Royals 31, Braves 29, Marlins 27, Rockies 25
2005: Giants 28, Rockies 26, Devil Rays 26
2004: Rockies 34, Reds 30, Tigers 28, Giants 28, Indians 28, A's 28, Phillies 25
2003: Cardinals 30, Royals 28, Brewers 27, Reds 26, Indians 25, Devil Rays 25
2002: Rangers 33, Blue Jays 29, Cubs 25

So, on average four or five clubs blow 25 or more saves each year (though none have actually blown 35 in the last five years), so I suppose it's possible that the 2007 Red Sox will be one of those teams. Still, if the starting pitching is decent (and it may be) and if the offense is as potent as you think it will be, they're not going to have that many save opportunities to blow, are they? I mean, the 2003 Red Sox had a lousy pen and a great offense, and its bullpen blew 21 saves all year (tied for 8th-worst), despite its 4.83 bullpen ERA (28th of 30 teams in MLB). You can't blow tons of saves if your offense is great and your starting pitching is decent -- there won't be tons of saves to blow.
   51. jyjjy Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:13 AM (#2287783)
"That's 1000+ runs easy for the season"

I don't know about that. An article on RLYW projected the Yankees to have an outside chance at it and even with Helton the Sox line-up seems to still be a bit behind NYs;

Youk < Damon
Drew > Jeter
Ortiz > A-Rod
Manny > Giambi
Helton < Abreu
Tek << Matsui
Lugo < Posada
Pedroia ? Eye Chart/Phelps/Phillips
Crisp < Cano

This is very approximate based mostly on 3 year averages with each > or < being 40-60 points of straight OPS.
   52. jyjjy Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:20 AM (#2287786)
And, please, I don't mean to turn this into a highjack about Yankees line-up vs Sox lineup. Just doing a rough comparison to a team with a spefic study of it's chances of scoring 1000 runs;

http://yankeefan.blogspot.com/2007/01/can-yanks-march-to-1000-runs-in-2007.html
   53. Rough Carrigan Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:29 AM (#2287787)
I will be very surprised if Ortiz doesn't top his 2003 OPS+
   54. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:39 AM (#2287792)
I'm a little confused by CP here.

Mike Lowell was an above average hitter and fielder last year. He was also an above average hitter and fielder constantly until 2005. He's a good baseball player, and you're really reaching here.

This is not to get into the Pedroia/Cano debate, which goes in the other thread and is unrelated.
   55. Dr. Vaux Posted: January 29, 2007 at 01:41 AM (#2287793)
I'm so tired of runs.
   56. Sean in Sydney Posted: January 29, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2287805)
Wow. Eat $40m to get a .400obp hitter out of town? Amazing.
   57. NTNgod Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2287834)
The Rocky Mountain News (meaning Ringolsby) posted a new story about an hour ago headlined "Helton to Red Sox is far from a done deal"... but it seems to have disappeared? (Well, the link is there, it just doesn't lead to a story - just a blank page).

The intro on the sports page is all that currently is available:
Renewed talks about a trade in which the Rockies would send first baseman Todd Helton, right, to the Boston Red Sox hit another snag Sunday as the Rockies remained firm in their demand that one of the elite prospects in the Boston system be included if a deal is made.


I checked Google News, and it had grabbed the link and the first sentence or two of the article, but their link doesn't work either. Weird.
   58. bibigon Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:26 AM (#2287839)
Renewed talks about a trade in which the Rockies would send first baseman Todd Helton, right, to the Boston Red Sox hit another snag Sunday as the Rockies remained firm in their demand that one of the elite prospects in the Boston system be included if a deal is made.


This is a pretty serious, likely dealbreaking, snag.
   59. NTNgod Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:30 AM (#2287840)
O'Dowd had a family emergency that took him out of town, and won't be back until Monday or Tuesday.

So who's negotiating for Colorado today?
(or is he pulling a Hendry and swapping phone calls from a hospital? (or funeral home or whatever))
   60. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:48 AM (#2287843)
Renewed talks about a trade in which the Rockies would send first baseman Todd Helton, right, to the Boston Red Sox hit another snag Sunday as the Rockies remained firm in their demand that one of the elite prospects in the Boston system be included if a deal is made.


Predictable. Everything we were hearing about the deal is absolutely favoring the Red Sox 200%. Maybe if it just favors them 100%, O'Dowd will foolishly pull the trigger. He should be demanding a top prospect and another good one if he is eating 40-60 million (if you include the crazy idea that they'd take the Red Sox failed contracts). O'Dowd isn't that bad a GM, is he?
   61. NTNgod Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:50 AM (#2287844)
O'Dowd made off like a bandit in the Jason Jennings deal this winter...
   62. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:52 AM (#2287845)
favoring the Red Sox 200%


Nay, make that 400%.
   63. NTNgod Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:54 AM (#2287846)
IT RE-APPEARS! :P
It sounds like a owner-driven deal on both sides:

Rocky Mountain News: Helton to Red Sox is far from a done deal
Helton, meanwhile, said he had no complaints if the deal falls through. He has indicated he would approve a trade to Boston, but he said his preference is to retire with the Rockies
...
The talks were resurrected when Monfort was approached by Red Sox President Larry Lucchino during the quarterly meeting of major league owners earlier this month.

The sides have a general understanding on the Rockies picking up $40 million of what remains of the contract, but there have been problems finalizing the details. The real hangup, however, has been over the players the Rockies will receive in return, and if an agreement isn’t reached this week, it most likely will die.

There is reluctance among people on the baseball side with both teams to make the deal.
...
In addition, the Rockies gave the Red Sox a list that includes five prime prospects — center fielder Jacob Ellsbury, and right-handed pitchers Daniel Bard, Manny Delcarmen, Craig Hansen and Clay Buchholz — and have said one of them would have to be in the deal.
...
There were indications in Boston that the trade possibility is developing into another power battle between Lucchino and general manager Theo Epstein
   64. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 03:57 AM (#2287847)
The thing I don't get is that the Red Sox are haggling over prospects that are on the fringe of their top 10. If they give up Hansen or Delcarmen, like big deal, they still have a ton of good prospects. On BA Hansen is 8th this year and Delcarmen isn't even on their top 10, I think he was 8th last year too. They still have Bowdem, Bucholz, Ellsbury, Bard, Lars Anderson, etc. etc. etc.
   65. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:01 AM (#2287849)
In addition, the Rockies gave the Red Sox a list that includes five prime prospects — center fielder Jacob Ellsbury, and right-handed pitchers Daniel Bard, Manny Delcarmen, Craig Hansen and Clay Buchholz — and have said one of them would have to be in the deal.


Can Bard even be traded?

And why would Bard, Delcarmen, and Hansen be as acceptable as Ellsbury or Bucholtz? They're not even going to include Bowden? That still seems off.
   66. MSI Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:03 AM (#2287850)
If the deal goes through this is my guess on how it looks:

Hansen, Edgar Martinez, Tavarez, Lowell for Helton and 38 million.

I hope that Helton sucks for the socks and they pull another Josh Beckett by giving up Ellsbury or someone who'll be a star with the other team. Anyway...
   67. NTNgod Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2287851)
Since it's likely to be a slow news night, and there's a decent amount of new info in the RMN article, I'm going to start a new thread (it's the only really juicy story/news going on, anyways, so it deserves a 'Daily Thread')...
   68. Darren Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:11 AM (#2287852)
Delcarmen's not in the top 10 because he graduated. He's a good reliever, something that they need very badly. Hansen was really lousy last year and I'm just not sure what to make of him.

I think someone has pointed out that Bard cannot be traded right now, even as a PTBNL. I'm not certain about those rules though.

Here's an interesting paragraph:

Boston has offered right-handed pitcher Julian Tavarez, who is guaranteed $3.1 million in 2007, and third baseman Mike Lowell, who is guaranteed $9 million, money to help make up the difference between those two salaries and the $16.6 million that Helton will make this season.

So the Red Sox are offering money to make up the difference between $12 mil and $16 mil, while the Rockies are including $40 mil in the deal? Why the heck wouldn't they just reduce the latter number to $36 mil? This doesn't make sense and it sounds like whoever is reporting this doesn't really have any hard info. Plus, where's Clement?

I'm really not getting this deal from the Rockies side. If it's a salary dump, they just aren't dumping enough salary.
   69. akrasian Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:32 AM (#2287870)
When did Bard sign? He can't be officially traded until the anniversary of his signing. Since a ptbnl has to be finalized within 6 months of the trade being official, he couldn't be included in a trade as a ptbnl until 6 months after his signing.
   70. pkb33 Posted: January 29, 2007 at 04:33 AM (#2287871)
Bard can be traded as a PTBNL after March 4, I believe...that would allow him to be named within six months and a year after signing.

It seems unlikely that Colo wants to have someone included who would have to pitch for another team for the entire year, so I tend to doubt they asked about Bard. What seems more likely is the Rox said "top prospect" and the reported punched up a prospect list and found Bard on it.
   71. Banta Posted: January 29, 2007 at 05:41 AM (#2287935)
I think the only concensus we came up with was this:

Colonel Tigh: Worth thinking about
Adama: Definitely worth thinking about.

"There's no boundaries for the Yankees, there's no boundaries for us! Anything we can do to nail that son of a ##### George Steinbrenner is worth doing."

I know it's late, but the situation called for it to be posted.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
JE (Jason)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(631 - 6:39am, Oct 31)
Last: Norcan

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(10 - 6:15am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(18 - 6:07am, Oct 31)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogThe Players' Tribune: Jeter: The Clean Up
(2 - 4:23am, Oct 31)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(83 - 4:02am, Oct 31)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(135 - 3:35am, Oct 31)
Last: baxter

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(10 - 2:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Dan

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(52 - 2:35am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1021 - 1:53am, Oct 31)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(108 - 1:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4785 - 12:40am, Oct 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(11 - 12:17am, Oct 31)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 0.3700 seconds
52 querie(s) executed