 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Helton being saved for a trade?
khazim
I could be way off on this, since the Rockies have routinely made logic-defying roster moves in the past.
Helton being saved for a trade?
July 24, 2008 at 06:26PM View BBCode
I keep reading stories about how the Rockies are "being careful" about bringing Helton back from the DL. I get the sneaky suspicion, what with the current lineup being productive, that they're keeping him off the field so they can move Helton to a contender.I could be way off on this, since the Rockies have routinely made logic-defying roster moves in the past.
happy
July 24, 2008 at 09:29PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
the longer he is on the DL the more other teams will be concerned about his health. if they were going to try to move him, i would think they would rush him back.
ME
July 24, 2008 at 10:12PM View BBCode
No, censored . They would be trying not to make sure he gets injured again. Helton's massive contract makes him untradable unless the Rockies eat a lot of it though.
khazim
July 24, 2008 at 11:06PM View BBCode
it's a big one, to be sure, but if they don't, the Rockies will lose Holliday.
khazim
Besides, shipping out Holliday would reduce gate revenues by around 50%.
July 25, 2008 at 01:06PM View BBCode
I don't agree. There is no value you can place on him that another team would be willing to meet, that remotely approaches fair market value.Besides, shipping out Holliday would reduce gate revenues by around 50%.
ME
July 25, 2008 at 01:27PM View BBCode
50%? Maybe a little, but not nearly that much but if they can get a good package for him they should take. I don't think they will though.
khazim
This is the Rockies. They make trades and signings that defy logic, so your statement, all of it, is dead on balls accurate.
[Edited on 7-25-2008 by khazim]
July 25, 2008 at 03:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
50%? Maybe a little, but not nearly that much but if they can get a good package for him they should take. I don't think they will though.
This is the Rockies. They make trades and signings that defy logic, so your statement, all of it, is dead on balls accurate.
[Edited on 7-25-2008 by khazim]
ME
July 25, 2008 at 03:54PM View BBCode
I meant to say that I don't think they'll get a great package for him, but even if they did they'd probably reject it unless it was a Bartolo Colon-sized fleecing.
ME
July 25, 2008 at 03:59PM View BBCode
As for Helton, he's owed the pro-rated part of his $16.1M salary this year $55.7M over the next three years (including the 2012 buyout of $4.6M, since the $23M option is guaranteed to be declined). It's a question of how much the Rockies are willing to eat if they trade him since they probably couldn't give him away at that salary.
khazim
July 25, 2008 at 05:41PM View BBCode
They could work a triangle trade like they did with Hampton to mitigate some of that salary.
dirtdevil
July 25, 2008 at 05:48PM View BBCode
even if they were willing to eat a large chunk of his salary (and i agree that they'd have to) would there really be that big a market for him? his difference-maker days appear to be over.
khazim
July 25, 2008 at 06:03PM View BBCode
He still has a great OBP. He used to be a classic #3 guy, but now, he'd fit into a lineup as either a #2 or #7 hitter, neither of which is deserving of a 16 mil salary.
dirtdevil
July 25, 2008 at 06:06PM View BBCode
all of which is true, but not really the usual profile most teams are looking for their 1B to fit.
khazim
July 27, 2008 at 06:20PM View BBCode
again, I can't disagree with you. Most people look for a 1B to be a power hitter. Then again, Pete Rose filled the 1B role for a few years and he was definitely not your classic 1B.
dirtdevil
July 28, 2008 at 02:59AM View BBCode
yes, but contrary to popular (an incredibly self-promoted) legend, pete rose wasn't really that great a player. i wouldn't trade todd helton in his prime for 5 pete roses.
dirtdevil
July 28, 2008 at 04:27PM View BBCode
i don't remember mentioning bonds at all, but yes, i'd say so. gambling gets into the possibility of throwing games to win bets, which is far more detrimental to the game than steroid use, in my view. that's neither here nor there though, as regards the original point.
khazim
Also, with the Post All-Star Game performance by the Rockies, they may not be making any trade deadline deals.
July 29, 2008 at 04:14PM View BBCode
neither would I. A team can only handle so many Charlie Hustles.. granted, he could have (and did) start at least 500 games at 5 different positions.(LF, RF, 1B, 2B, 3B).Also, with the Post All-Star Game performance by the Rockies, they may not be making any trade deadline deals.
Pages: 1