Denver Post sports writer Patrick Saunders posts his Rockies Mailbag every other week on Tuesdays during the season and once per month during the offseason.
Pose a Rockies — or MLB — related question for the Rockies Mailbag.
Let me begin this week’s mailbag by saying that Rockies Nation is restless, to say the least. Heading into Tuesday’s nightap game, the Rockies had lost eight of their last nine games, going 3-8 to start the season. The only worst start in franchise history was in 2005 when the Rockies lost nine of their first 11.
Fans are upset, especially because the expectations coming into the season were sky high. Itap still very, very early, but the Rockies have not played quality baseball out of the gate.
Did we – did I? – overestimate their talent? Perhaps. Time will tell.
The poor start certainly made the timing of my Sunday column less than ideal — at least from the perspective of many fans. I praised owner Dick Monfort for helping shape the Rockies into a first-class organization and for making Coors Field such a wonderful venue. Not everyone liked what I wrote. In fact, itap been a long time since I received so many nasty emails from one of my columns, but I stand by what I wrote.
OK, off my soap box. Letap get on to your questions, rants and opinions.
Do the Rockies really believe that by only adding an aging (and again, now injured) Daniel Murphy to the lineup is the answer to their offensive woes? How long will they continue to add players to the lineup that are on the downhill side of their careers and ask them to play out of position while selling it to the fan base as our one great move of the offseason?
— Kari, Denver
Kari, I actually think the Murphy signing was a good move. Injuries happen and I don’t think Murphy’s injury had anything to do with his age (he turned 34 on April 1). From what I saw in the latter part of spring training, he still has plenty of pop in his bat and I think when he returns from his broken finger he’ll end up hitting .300.
I’m not sure Murphy is really “out of position.” By his own admission, he was not a good second baseman and I think he’ll handle first base just fine.
You don’t mention this in your question, but I’m assuming you think Ian Desmond fits into your scenario. Desmond has been a player without a real position since he was signed to a five-year, $70 million deal, and he has not lived up to expectations. He’s slumping terribly right now. clearly
However, I will add this: Itap not unusual to add veteran players such Mark Reynolds (35) as experienced utility players. Many teams do that.
Also, part of the reason the Rockies were not more aggressive signing free agent players was because of their desire to lock up Nolan Arenado and German Marquez to long-term deals. They accomplished that, but that didn’t leave much money left over.
Do you think the “Colorado Excuses” will continue to flirt with the Mendoza Line as a team? I believe they are simply an average team with a very inflated view of themselves.
— Tony Marquez, Lakewood
Tony, this is more of a rant than a question, but I’ll attempt to field it.
Right now, the Rockies are batting .219, which is third-worst in the National League. But there is no way they will end up hitting near the “Mendoza Line” of .200. By the way, the , who’s actual career batting average was .215.
Anyway, the Rockies hit .256 as a team last year, the worst average in franchise history. As bad as the team looks right now – and it looks really bad – I don’t think the Rockies will match last year’s level of ineptitude. However, it doesn’t look like they are going to have an offense near good enough to challenge the powerful Dodgers in the National League West. The Rockies’ best shot – again – is as a wild-card team.
Many would agree that the weakest position for the Rockies at this point is catcher. And there are no catching prospects listed among their top 30 prospects. The Rockies are, however, loaded at first base. Daniel Murphy is signed for two years. Behind him are no less than five prospects with excellent first base potential — Ryan McMahon, Colton Welker, Josh Fuentes, Tyler Nevin, and Grant Levigne.
What has kept GM Jeff Bridich from working out a trade with a catcher-rich team involving one or more of these prospects?
— Patrick Lawrence, Colorado Springs
Patrick, thatap a fair question. But I would turn the question around on you and ask what catcher you wanted the Rockies to acquire? The Rockies did show some preliminary interest in J.T. Realmuto, but from what I understand the Marlins wanted right-hander Jon Gray and top prospect Brendan Rodgers as part of a deal. The Marlins finally did ship Realmuto to the Phillies in exchange for four high-end prospects.
How realistic was a Rockies trade for Realmuto or another catcher? I’m really not sure.
Now, when you say “catcher-rich team,” I’m not sure if that means prospects or established major-league catchers. If you meant the latter, established catchers are hard to acquire.
Hi Patrick. I remember reading the Rockies wanted to give Garrett Hampson some time in center field. I’m assuming he got some reps there during spring training. Did you get an impression of how he looked? Do you think he’s the primary backup to Desmond or would it be Raimel Tapia?
— John, Los Angeles, Calif.
John, Hampson saw limited time in center during spring training and he actually got the start in center field on Monday night, replacing the slumping Desmond. Hampson is the fastest player on the team and he has excellent baseball instincts. He looks pretty comfortable in center, but Coors Field is a different animal, so we’ll see how he does.
Hampson, however, is not the primary backup to Desmond in center field. Right now that is Tapia or David Dahl, though Dahl is out with an oblique injury and could be sidelined for some time to come.
Hi Patrick, I like the German Marquez deal but I think the five-year, $43 million contract with the Rockies is win for Monfort and Co. The deal, I believe, locks Marquez up through all his arbitration years. To me, it says the Rox wanted nothing to do with Marquez going through arbitration. I mean, who can blame them, he is a potential 20-game winner. Would love your thoughts.
— Andy, Denver
Andy, I agree with you that the Marquez deal is team friendly, but it would be pure speculation to say this was about avoiding arbitration. Talking to Marquez on the day he officially signed, itap clear that he was thrilled with the new deal and the security it gives his family.
I asked general manager Jeff Bridich about the timing of the deal, and how it came about, and deftly sidestepped the question.
“There was enough communication where as time passed, enough information passed between everybody involved,” he said. “It was the right time to get it done.”
Any chance Matt Holliday is brought back to fortify the bench? He did a great job as a pinch hitter last year and with a few more plate appearances he could produce even more. Any thoughts?
— Josh W., Butte, Montana
Josh, Holliday was certainly open to coming back to Colorado this season, but when the Rockies signed Mark Reynolds to a minor-league deal (he subsequently made the major-league roster), it was clear that the Rockies were not going to sign Holliday, who’s now 39 years old.
Why are the Rockies always bringing back former players who are past their prime? There is no reason Colorado needed to sign Jorge De La Rosa, at all. At 38, just seems like he doesn’t have much to offer this team. If they wanted a left handed reliever they should have brought back a much younger Yohan Flande, who is 33.
— Jeff, Englewood
Jeff, first of all, De La Rosa was signed to a minor-league deal and there are no guarantees he will ever pitch for the Rockies again. He’s essentially getting a trail workout down in Scottsdale.
Having said that, if the Rockies do end up using De La Rosa in bullpen, it would show just how thin their bullpen truly is.
As for your comparison of De La Rosa and Flande, there is no comparison. De La Rosa is a much more accomplished pitcher, even at his age. In 59 appearances last season with the Diamondbacks and the Cubs, he posted a respectable 3.59 ERA. Lefty relievers have a long shelf life.
Just an overall thought here. I think the way players get paid in all major sports should change. The Mike Trout deal (12 years, $426.5 million) is just atrocious for one player. No one player should earn that.
How about changing it to a Player Tier structure. Example: Tier 3 is for High Level, Producing Players, Tier 2 is for midlevel and Tier 1 for rookies and back-ups. Each level has its designated guaranteed base salaries but loaded with incentives.
This could potentially get rid of the free agent holdouts waiting to see who gets what deal and could even lower admission prices so fans who do not make a lot of money can afford to go to games and get a good seat.
To put it in a nutshell, this would be a universal pay structure that could be fair for everyone and protect teams from bad contracts.
Again, just a thought!
— Victor, Alameda, Calif.
Victor, you’re not the only one who is offended by mega-salaries such as Troutap, Bryce Harper’s or Nolan Arenado’s. My 87-year-old mom is a huge Rockies fan and she called the big new deals “obscene.”
I understand that sentiment. I just choose to look at it as “Monopoly Money,” because that’s the only way I can fathom that kind of money for playing a game. Then again, if thatap what the market bears, I don’t blame the players for cashing in, especially when the owners are getting richer and richer.
As for your pay structure plan, itap very interesting, but it will never, ever happen. The players’ union would never accept it.
Denver Post sports writer Patrick Saunders posts his Rockies Mailbag every other week on Tuesdays during the season and once per month during the offseason.
Pose a Rockies — or MLB — related question for the Rockies Mailbag.
