Well, the 2009 Winter Meetings could have gone two ways for the Rockies. One, Dan O'Dowd could have dangled Brad Hawpe, the Rockies could have made overtures to well...anyone of significance. This was unlikely, and did not come to pass. Instead, Rafael Betancourt did the smart thing and accepted arbitration from the Rockies while Jason Marquis made an equally good business decision and declined. The Rockies didn't select anyone in the Rule 5 draft, nor did they have anyone selected. Pretty ho hum to be sure.

However, some significant events did take place regarding the Rockies during the Winter Meetings, giving fans an even clearer picture of the way the roster will shake out. Betancourt's acceptance of arbitration was obviously the most significant, as the Rockies were prepared to bring back LaTroy Hawkins for two years, $7.5 million--a move that for some reason screamed Luiz Vizcaino 2.0 to me--if he had declined. So I'm glad that the Rockies will have an accomplished 8th inning man next year so long as they can fit it into their budget.

As I've said before, if there's a year to spend a little for an extra marginal win or two, it's this one. The NL West crown has never seemed more up for grabs for the Rockies than it appears this year, especially with the Dodgers shuffling through a bizarre offseason, the Giants yet to secure a big bat, and the Padres nickeling and diming their roster. Meanwhile, it was the Diamondbacks who were the big movers of the NL West at the GM meetings in trading away high-upside Max Scherzer and Daniel Schlereth to Detroit as part of a three team deal that netted them All-Star pitcher Edwin Jackson as well as Yankees pitcher Ian Kennedy to solidify their rotation for at least 2010. Should Brandon Webb come back strong from surgery, that is one scary rotation developing in Arizona for 2010--and a reason why they will be overrated by about 10 wins in preseason predictions by pundits everywhere. At least, that's my prediction--the Diamondbacks coming in at around 78 wins next year because I'm not sold on their hitting nor their health.

In any case, the Rockies made a move over the winter meetings in locking up Chris Iannetta through his arbitration years (three years, $8.3 million) plus a cheap club option ($5 million) for his first year of free agency. Rob Neyer applauded the move and I agree with him. Love him or like him, this is a solid move for the Rockies, and here's why...

Poll

Who would you rather have as the backup catcher for the Rockies in 2010?

• Chris Iannetta
• Michael McKenry
• Miguel Olivo
• Paul Phillips
• Yorvit Torrealba
• Other

  280 votes | Results

Continue reading this post »

Yes, Rockies fans, it's that time that you've all been waiting for: Hot Stove Season. Now that arbitration offers have been made from clubs to some of their free agents, it's time for the free agency period to begin in earnest--or at least it will when those who have been offered arbitration decide to accept or decline it (the deadline for that is December 7th). Then at the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis (the 7th through the 10th) GMs will have a pretty good idea of where the free agent market stands and what their teams' needs are.

Given the way the chips have fallen so far, it's looking increasingly like the Rockies won't make any moves of great consequence at the Meetings, though the possibility of a big trade looms insidiously just under the surface as the Rockies look to shape their roster and payroll for the 2010 season.

In this belated edition of Purple Row Academy I will do my best to break down how the upcoming Winter Meetings and the Rule 5 draft will affect the Rockies. In addition, I'll offer up some analysis on the Rockies' arbitration offers to Jason Marquis and Rafael Betancourt plus a look at some free agents the Rockies have targeted (an expanded target list for the Rockies from the last edition).

Continue reading this post »

Ladies and Gentlemen, the siren of the MLB free agency period once again beckons, luring unsuspecting baseball fans into wrecking their ships against the sharp jagged rocks--in this case dreams of big-ticket free agents for even the smallest markets, ill-conceived trade schemes, and long soliloquies about why the owner/GM/beat writer is a complete and utter moron. This column, my dear friends, is the beeswax to put in your ears to defend you from those beautiful seductresses (and their horrible ideas) as you look forward to the 2010 Rockies.

Yes, that's right. A few minutes ago, the floodgates officially opened for major league free agency. In addition, all MLB teams are required to set their 40 man rosters in advance of the December 8th Rule 5 draft. I've written about all three subjects in Purple Row Academy before, so for those of you who are curious about how those processes are carried out, check out these primers:

Free Agency (the dates listed therein are from last offseason)

40 Man Roster 

Rule 5 Draft

All three of these articles have supporting links that clarify the issues even further.

In this installment of the State of the Rockies, I opine about the puzzling Garrett Atkins decision, revisit Rafael Betancourt's situation, examine the Rockies' current 40 man roster status, and look some free agent targets that I'd like the Rockies to consider (plus, how they would fit into the budget that I've outlined over the last two weeks).

Join me after the jump if you value your sanity. 

Continue reading this post »

In what will be a semi-weekly occurrence from now until January on Purple Row Academy, I'm going to update my post on the State of the Rockies. In other words, I will update my loyal readers (all three of you)--as well as anyone stupid intrepid enough to follow me after the jump as to the roster framework the Rockies are looking at as some big offseason deadlines approach.

This week, I'll be looking at what has happened thus far for the Rockies and what that means going forward. Also discussed will be the Rockies' impending decision on Rafael Betancourt's club option and how the Rockies are affected by the Elias Free Agent classifications.

By next week, we should have a better idea of what the Rockies are doing as the beginning of free agency and the deadline to set 40 man rosters approaches (November 20th).

Jump with me, brave souls, to roster-building nirvana...

Poll

Should the Rockies exercise their $5.4 million club option on Rafael Betancourt?

39%

Yes. He was nails last season and provides a solid bridge to Huston Street.

111 votes

46%

No, the Rockies should try to sign him at a lower price over a multi-year deal.

131 votes

14%

No, Betancourt is old and signing him would tie up too much salary to the bullpen.

40 votes

282 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »

In the comments of my column last week about the Rockies' contract situations, much of the discussion centered around what the Rockies should do with outfielder Brad Hawpe this offseason.

---

---

Dan O'Dowd has said that Hawpe wasn't on the market, inferring that he wouldn't move Hawpe unless it was for a Matt Holliday-type return. Hawpe is due $7.5 million in 2010 with a $10 million team option in 2011 that will be voided if he is traded--meaning that for other teams he'd be a one year rental. Also of note is that Hawpe would likely qualify as a Type A free agent for the team that traded for him, netting that team two first round draft picks as compensation were Hawpe to walk away after the one year.

Here's the thing: Hawpe rode a hot streak with the bat in 2009 to the All-Star game but came back down to earth hard in the second half, all the while providing subpar defense. In fact, according to FanGraphs, Hawpe's batting value was virtually canceled out by his fielding last year. Due to this fact, despite Hawpe's offensive production he was worth only 1.3 WAR in 2009--which is actually right in line with his $5.5 million compensation.

The Rockies have a good problem with outfield depth, as Hawpe just may be the fourth best outfielder on the Rockies' roster going into 2010, behind Seth Smith, Carlos Gonzalez, and an improving Dexter Fowler. Because the Rockies will have an abundance of potential salary arbitration cases this winter, Hawpe's contract may be a little too unwieldy to remain on the roster--O'Dowd may need Hawpe's money to pay for a player like Rafael Betancourt, Jason Giambi, or the replacement of Garrett Atkins.

After the jump, I'll use the Trade Value Calculator, originally developed by Beyond the Boxscore's Sky Kalkman, to determine Hawpe's value to both the Rockies and to a prospective trade partner, as well as a short foray into simple economic theory.

Continue reading this post »

While Major League Baseball has yet to crown a champion, the Rockies' season is (unfortunately) over and it is time to look forward towards the swiftly oncoming offseason. The Rockies have quite a to-do list this year.  

The clock for Colorado and the rest of MLB starts ticking when the Fall (Winter?) Classic concludes, as teams have 15 days to exclusively negotiate with their prospective free agents. After that time (let's say November 20th), free agents are, well, free to go where their services are most sought after. The original team has until December 12th to tender 2010 contracts to their free agents.

For those players (like Garrett Atkins) who have less than six years of MLB service time, their teams control their rights, but must tender the player a contract offer or salary arbitration, by December 1st--with the player needing to make a decision by the 7th. As a result, at baseball's Winter Meetings from December 7-10, teams will have some idea as to where the market stands.

Finally, December 8th is a very important deadline, as it is the day in which MLB clubs must set their 40 man rosters in preparation for the Rule 5 Draft, which occurs on the 10th.

These dates and other offseason deadlines are explained in more detail here.

To learn a little bit more about some of the topics I just touched upon, please check out these previous sessions of Purple Row Academy, which I'll be updating over the offseason:

Salary Arbitration

40 Man Roster

MLB Service Time

Free Agency

Trades and Contract Tenders

Rule 5 Draft

Now that you understand a little better the timeline that Dan O'Dowd and the Rockies are working with, I'll break down the Rockies' contract situations (and the decisions to be made therein) extensively after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Continuing the trend of Purple Row staff handing imaginary hardware to those we feel are most deserving of it, today we reveal the winner of the Purple Row NL Cy Young Award.

The main-stream media had a dilemma between Tim Lincecum of the Giants and the pair of Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright of the Cardinals. Proponents of Wainwright (most wins with 19 and innings pitched with 233), Carpenter (lowest ERA at 2.24, best record at 17-4, and best WHIP at 1.01), and Lincecum (most strikeouts at 261, best FIP at 2.34, a freakish windup, and long shaggy hair) all have good arguments.

See which pitcher captured the hearts and minds of PR writers after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

This story was originally posted on Purple Row (where I write a weekly column called Purple Row Academy) and represents an update of sorts to articles that I wrote back in May on the concept of marginal wins. This community probably understands this pretty well, so treat it as a refresher if you will.

A common theme for Purple Row Academy this entire year has been looking at ways to quantify a player's value to a team, especially through the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) stat used notably by FanGraphs. For those who don't understand what WAR is or how it is calculated, here's a crash course from previous PR Academy sessions:

Position Players

Pitchers

By looking at the sum for a team of each player on that team's value, one can attempt to measure both how efficient and how effective that team was. But WAR is by definition an individual statistic and judging efficiency by WAR alone would be only the sum of individuals. This is problematic because seldom in baseball does the sum of the individual players' successes accurately measure the team's performance. 

A metric measuring team performance to compare to the individual performance calculated by WAR is therefore what we require. What can we use to measure how well and how efficiently the team performed? There's always the simple end of season payroll vs. number of wins linear comparison to figure out MLB payroll efficiency using 3 year averages from 2006 to 2008, which I did a few months back.

But that is assuming that all wins are equal. As any economist worth their salt will tell you, this is patently false. In light of that, I'll go back a little farther back in PR Academy sessions to the concept of Marginal Wins.

If I had to explain this concept in two sentences, I'd say that MP and MW are basically setting a floor (minimum possible outcome) for both payroll (in 2009, $11.2 million--which happens with 25 players on the active roster plus 3 on the DL making the minimum of $400k) and wins (30% of all games, or 48.6 wins, which all but one team has accomplished since the implementation of the amateur draft in 1965). The farther the team reaches from this minimum plateau of wins, the more difficult (not to mention important and expensive) each incremental, or marginal, win becomes.

Marginal Payroll and Marginal Wins

The creator of the system, BP's Doug Pappas, explains that "the Marginal Payroll/Marginal Wins (MP/MW) system evaluates the efficiency of a club's front office by comparing its payroll and record to the performance it could expect to attain by fielding a roster of replacement-level players, all of whom are paid the major league minimum salary" (basically Wins Over Replacement Team). The formula is:

(club payroll - (28 x major league minimum) / ((winning percentage - .300) x 162)

The first half of the equation measures the club's marginal payroll and the second measures the marginal wins. The lower the number, the more efficiently the club spent its cash. Comparing this number to the club's actual winning percentage provides another way to evaluate teams. As Pappas explains:

Low MP/MW, good record: Efficient ballclub (2003 Marlins, Athletics)
Low MP/MW, bad record: Not spending enough to compete (2003 Devil Rays)
High MP/MW, good record: Spending its way to the top (2003 Yankees)
High MP/MW, bad record: Poorly-run club (2003 Mets, Rangers)

 Since a team's payroll fluctuates throughout the year and I use Opening Day Payroll (ODP) to calculate MP/MW, this metric is probably best used to evaluate the efficiency of the front office's offseason moves and as a gauge for a team's expectations going into the year.

To emphasize the inequity of wins, this is what I said back then:

Though it can be (and has been) done by a small payroll team, going from 60 to 80 wins in MLB is an insignificant accomplishment on a macro level because those teams still miss the playoffs. In moving from 80 to 90 wins, however, a team goes from an also-ran to a bona fide playoff contender. After all, 68 of 78 teams (87%) in the last ten years that crossed the 90 win threshold made the playoffs, making these marginal wins much more important and therefore expensive.

 For example, the average value of a marginal win in 2008 was about $2.7 million, but the value of a win getting you from 89-90 wins was worth almost $6 million.

It isn't a simple concept by any means, but I've found that MP/MW or WORT has produced some excellent results. I'll show how the Rockies did by this metric after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

A common theme for Purple Row Academy this entire year has been looking at ways to quantify a player's value to a team, especially through the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) stat used notably by FanGraphs. For those who don't understand what WAR is or how it is calculated, here's a crash course from previous PR Academy sessions:

Position Players

Pitchers

By looking at the sum for a team of each player on that team's value, one can attempt to measure both how efficient and how effective that team was. But WAR is by definition an individual statistic and judging efficiency by WAR alone would be only the sum of individuals. This is problematic because seldom in baseball does the sum of the individual players' successes accurately measure the team's performance. 

A metric measuring team performance to compare to the individual performance calculated by WAR is therefore what we require. What can we use to measure how well and how efficiently the team performed? There's always the simple end of season payroll vs. number of wins linear comparison to figure out MLB payroll efficiency using 3 year averages from 2006 to 2008, which I did a few months back.

But that is assuming that all wins are equal. As any economist worth their salt will tell you, this is patently false. In light of that, I'll go back a little farther back in PR Academy sessions to the concept of Marginal Wins.

If I had to explain this concept in two sentences, I'd say that MP and MW are basically setting a floor (minimum possible outcome) for both payroll (in 2009, $11.2 million--which happens with 25 players on the active roster plus 3 on the DL making the minimum of $400k) and wins (30% of all games, or 48.6 wins, which all but one team has accomplished since the implementation of the amateur draft in 1965). The farther the team reaches from this minimum plateau of wins, the more difficult (not to mention important and expensive) each incremental, or marginal, win becomes.

Marginal Payroll and Marginal Wins

The creator of the system, BP's Doug Pappas, explains that "the Marginal Payroll/Marginal Wins (MP/MW) system evaluates the efficiency of a club's front office by comparing its payroll and record to the performance it could expect to attain by fielding a roster of replacement-level players, all of whom are paid the major league minimum salary" (basically Wins Over Replacement Team). The formula is:

(club payroll - (28 x major league minimum) / ((winning percentage - .300) x 162)

The first half of the equation measures the club's marginal payroll and the second measures the marginal wins. The lower the number, the more efficiently the club spent its cash. Comparing this number to the club's actual winning percentage provides another way to evaluate teams. As Pappas explains:

Low MP/MW, good record: Efficient ballclub (2003 Marlins, Athletics)
Low MP/MW, bad record: Not spending enough to compete (2003 Devil Rays)
High MP/MW, good record: Spending its way to the top (2003 Yankees)
High MP/MW, bad record: Poorly-run club (2003 Mets, Rangers)

 Since a team's payroll fluctuates throughout the year and I use Opening Day Payroll (ODP) to calculate MP/MW, this metric is probably best used to evaluate the efficiency of the front office's offseason moves and as a gauge for a team's expectations going into the year.

To emphasize the inequity of wins, this is what I said back then:

Though it can be (and has been) done by a small payroll team, going from 60 to 80 wins in MLB is an insignificant accomplishment on a macro level because those teams still miss the playoffs. In moving from 80 to 90 wins, however, a team goes from an also-ran to a bona fide playoff contender. After all, 68 of 78 teams (87%) in the last ten years that crossed the 90 win threshold made the playoffs, making these marginal wins much more important and therefore expensive.

 For example, the average value of a marginal win in 2008 was about $2.7 million, but the value of a win getting you from 89-90 wins was worth almost $6 million.

It isn't a simple concept by any means, but I've found that MP/MW or WORT has produced some excellent results. I'll show how the Rockies did by this metric after the jump.

Continue reading this post »