Holliday to Oakland?

[Frayed Knot]

Jon Heyman (SI/WFAN) is reporting that the Rox are on the verge of dealing OFer Matt Holliday to Oakland. Not known at this time who would be going in return.

If true it would certainly be a departure for Oakland, trading for a 1-year rental as opposed to under-control players who they then deal when they're on the cusp of FA-gency.
St Louis, and possibly Philly, were considered the front-runners.

[metirish]

I read today (Heyman) that St.Louis pulled out because the GM their was upset with the Rockie's GM mouthing off about a possible deal.

[Theoldmole]

Is one Colorado player a Rocky or a Rockie?

[Frayed Knot]

I'm going with Rockie, so the headline would read;

Rockie Rookie Righty has Rocky Debut

[Valadius]

It's done.

Huston Street, Carlos Gonzalez, and Greg Smith go to Colorado.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Huston Street was a player the Mets were rumored to be interested in.

Had he been traded to New York, he'd have to change the pronunciation of his first name to "Howston."

[metirish]

I'm happy that I won't be subjected to 1-2-3 inning saves referred to as "Howston is on easy street".

[Guest themetfairy]

If we could get 1-2-3 saves I'd take whatever stupid headlines the papers decided to dole out.

[Frayed Knot]

Valadius wrote: It's done. Huston Street, Carlos Gonzalez, and Greg Smith go to Colorado.

Street was Oakland's own 1st round draft pick from a few years back while OFer Gonzalez and pitcher Smith were two of the guys they got from Arizona in last year's Danny Haren deal.

So it looks like Beane just continues to rearrange the deck chairs every year or so seemingly on whim.
One thing about being drafted, or even acquired, by Oakland is that you're almost certain NOT to see your FA year there. Aside from Zito I don't know if anyone's left there voluntarily since the Tejada/Giambi era, and Eric Chavez is the only major player I can think of who got a FA-type contract to stay.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Snooze today suggests the Rocks could roll Street to the Mets in a deal for Heilman. I dunno if thast makes a lot of sense since it's pretty certain Fuentes leaves the Rockies too.

I suppose Street as a setupper wouldn;t outright suck

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't see the sense in that either. I'd figure that Street replaces Fuentes as closer. I'd also think that if Street were to be traded to the Mets for Heilman, the Rockies would have to get some additional players.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

I think Holliday gets exposed this season. He'll only be a cut above league average away from Coors.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think Holliday is pretty good, but not a great given the fact he can't run or field very well.

It's an interesting play by the A's. Holliday hired Boras so it's almost a cinch he goes onto the open market after next year. I read one take where where the A's owner is getting impatient and wants to win NOW!!!! but you gotta figure Beane knows he's got a chip next July if they don't.

The Rockies I suppose figure medium prospects now beats draft pixx later.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Holliday's splits last year:

Home: .332 / .413 / .584 // .997
Away: .308 / .405 / .486 // .892

I don't think there's any good reason for Oakland to think they bought a lemon. Coors isn't really Coors anymore.

[soupcan]

Edgy DC wrote: Coors isn't really Coors anymore.

Why is that? It's still in Denver.

Not trying to be contrary just genuinely wondering what they've done there to compensate besides playing with soggy balls (that's what she said).

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

="soupcan"] Edgy DC wrote: Coors isn't really Coors anymore. It's now MillerCoors

soupcan Nov 11 2008 08:04 AM

Oh.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 11 2008 08:39 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think Holliday is pretty good, but not a great given the fact he can't run or field very well. Actually, he's a pretty damn good baserunner, 6th best in the league, according to BP. ="Edgy DC"]Holliday's splits last year: Home: .332 / .413 / .584 // .997 Away: .308 / .405 / .486 // .892 His career splits: Home: .357 / .423 / .645 // 1.068 Away: .280 / .348 / .455 // .803 Not bad away from home, but not close to a superstar. ="Edgy DC"]Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Coors Field Park Factor, 2008: Batting - 125, Pitching - 126 For comparison, Citizen's Bank Park, 2008: Batting - 102, Pitching - 101

soupcan Nov 11 2008 08:42 AM

="Vince Coleman Firecracker"] ="Edgy DC"]Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Coors Field Park Factor, 2008: Batting - 125, Pitching - 126 For comparison, Citizen's Bank Park, 2008: Batting - 102, Pitching - 101 So.......it is still Coors? Not that I know what any of those numbers mean.

Edgy DC Nov 11 2008 08:45 AM

="soupcan"] ="Edgy DC"] Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Why is that? It's still in Denver. Not trying to be contrary just genuinely wondering what they've done there to compensate besides playing with soggy balls (that's what she said). The why isn't really what I'm commenting on --- cold balls, I guess is part of it. Maybe, if we read the fine print on the steroids ban, we'll see that they must've applied it to parks as well. The what, though is an offensive park factor that's drastically reduced from where it had been. 2008: 105 2007: 109 2006: 107 2005: 110 2004: 119 2003: 110 2002: 117 2001: 121 2000: 129 1999: 125 1998: 125 1997: 113 1996: 129 1995: 128

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 11 2008 08:47 AM

Oops, put the wrong year for Coors. Here's 2008: Park Factors (multi-year): Batting - 107, Pitching - 107 (one-year): Batting - 105, Pitching - 106 So, it was a normal Coors-y year.

soupcan Nov 11 2008 08:52 AM

Point me in a direction where I can find out what those numbers mean please.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 11 2008 08:53 AM

soupcan wrote: Point me in a direction where I can find out what those numbers mean please. Here ya go!

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 11 2008 08:57 AM

="Edgy DC"] ="soupcan"] ="Edgy DC"] Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Why is that? It's still in Denver. Not trying to be contrary just genuinely wondering what they've done there to compensate besides playing with soggy balls (that's what she said). The why isn't really what I'm commenting on --- cold balls, I guess is part of it. Maybe, if we read the fine print on the steroids ban, we'll see that they must've applied it to parks as well. The what, though is an offensive park factor that's drastically reduced from where it had been. 2008: 105 2007: 109 2006: 107 2005: 110 2004: 119 2003: 110 2002: 117 2001: 121 2000: 129 1999: 125 1998: 125 1997: 113 1996: 129 1995: 128 You know what? I stand corrected. The historic park factor is only a 3 year span (for some reason). Coors, while still among the best hitter's parks in the game, is no longer Coors. Fun fact! Shea was park-neutral last year!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2008 08:58 AM

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: Actually, he's a pretty damn good baserunner, 6th best in the league, according to BP. Yeah, call me a dinosaur on baserunning and fielding assessments but I go by EB (eyewitness baserunning) first then consider the other stuff. I'm sure his overall contribution is a positive one, he just doesn't look good getting it done. He also doesn't rank nearly as well in those categories in 07.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 11 2008 09:05 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: He also doesn't rank nearly as well in those categories in 07. But he was right there with speedsters Jason Tyner, Shane Victorino and Nate McClouth and was still rated better than Chase Utley, David Wright, and Hanley Ramirez, among many others.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2008 09:44 AM

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: I think Holliday gets exposed this season. He'll only be a cut above league average away from Coors. I love it when this stuff happens to a Rockie. I'm so sick of players from that team being regarded as if they were as good as Ted Williams. It's only a matter of time before the Rockies eventually do get the next legitimate Ted Williams. And that guy'll probably bat .500 with 70 home runs a season over there. If I was in charge of things, I would've never put a team in Denver in the first place. I realize that the city does a terrific job of supporting the Rockies, but I loathe the way the extreme atmospheric conditions in Denver distort the statistical end of the game.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2008 09:47 AM

="soupcan"] ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"] ="Edgy DC"]Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Coors Field Park Factor, 2008: Batting - 125, Pitching - 126 For comparison, Citizen's Bank Park, 2008: Batting - 102, Pitching - 101 So.......it is still Coors? Not that I know what any of those numbers mean. Coors is no longer the freak show that it was up until a few years ago, but even by present standards, it's still an extremely favorable hitter's park.

Edgy DC Nov 11 2008 09:53 AM

I think going from 129 to 105 has kind of redefined extreme.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2008 09:56 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]I think Holliday gets exposed this season. He'll only be a cut above league average away from Coors. I love it when this stuff happens to a Rockie. I'm so sick of players from that team being regarded as if they were as good as Ted Williams. It's only a matter of time before the Rockies eventually do get the next legitimate Ted Williams. And that guy'll probably bat .500 with 70 home runs a season over there. If I was in charge of things, I would've never put a team in Denver in the first place. I realize that the city does a terrific job of supporting the Rockies, but I loathe the way the extreme atmospheric conditions in Denver distort the statistical end of the game. I totally disgree with this. I like that there's a team in Denver, because their fans support it first, but especially because it showcases the diversity of the conditions in our country. And seeing how the team can adapt to the advanrtages and disadvantages of its home park has always been a fun part of baseball. I care not for how fucked up the stats become. It's windy in San Francisco, humid in Miami, pleasant in SD, cold in Detroit, etc etc. That's baseball in the USA, I say.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2008 10:00 AM

="Edgy DC"]I think going from 129 to 105 has kind of redefined extreme. I know what you mean. I posted my message before I got through reading the entire thread. We'll see if 105 is a fluke or representsative of the new trend. I still hate Coors, though. The air is still thin ... it still reduces the break on a pitched ball. The place is just too odd for baseball at the major league level, if anyone asks me. (No one has). I'm also suspicious of this humidor thing and the way it's enforced. How does anyone know if the Rockies aren't getting livelier balls to hit?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2008 10:02 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]I think Holliday gets exposed this season. He'll only be a cut above league average away from Coors. I love it when this stuff happens to a Rockie. I'm so sick of players from that team being regarded as if they were as good as Ted Williams. It's only a matter of time before the Rockies eventually do get the next legitimate Ted Williams. And that guy'll probably bat .500 with 70 home runs a season over there. If I was in charge of things, I would've never put a team in Denver in the first place. I realize that the city does a terrific job of supporting the Rockies, but I loathe the way the extreme atmospheric conditions in Denver distort the statistical end of the game. I totally disgree with this. I like that there's a team in Denver, because their fans support it first, but especially because it showcases the diversity of the conditions in our country. And seeing how the team can adapt to the advanrtages and disadvantages of its home park has always been a fun part of baseball. I care not for how fucked up the stats become. It's windy in San Francisco, humid in Miami, pleasant in SD, cold in Detroit, etc etc. That's baseball in the USA, I say. I agree with every single point you made. Except the part about the stats.

smg58 Nov 11 2008 10:03 AM

Holliday could still post an OPS a bit above .900 playing in Oakland. It's a fair question, though, if one year of that from a leftfielder is worth an established closer, a young starting pitcher whose rookie year performance was better than his won-lost record by itself would suggest, and a toolsy outfielder who ranked high on most top prospect lists the last two years.

Edgy DC Nov 11 2008 10:16 AM

="batmagadanleadoff"] ="Edgy DC"]I think going from 129 to 105 has kind of redefined extreme. I know what you mean. I posted my message before I got through reading the entire thread. We'll see if 105 is a fluke or representsative of the new trend It's been trending downwards since 2001. ="batmagadanleadoff"]I'm also suspicious of this humidor thing and the way it's enforced. How does anyone know if the Rockies aren't getting livelier balls to hit? It's the umpire who decides which balls to put in play.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2008 10:43 AM

="Edgy DC"] ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="Edgy DC"]I think going from 129 to 105 has kind of redefined extreme. I know what you mean. I posted my message before I got through reading the entire thread. We'll see if 105 is a fluke or representsative of the new trend It's been trending downwards since 2001. ="batmagadanleadoff"]I'm also suspicious of this humidor thing and the way it's enforced. How does anyone know if the Rockies aren't getting livelier balls to hit? It's the umpire who decides which balls to put in play. Is this entirely blind and random? How does the system work, exactly?. I'm asking because I'm not sure. I thought that the Rockies managed and supervised the humidor. My web search to determine precisely how the humidor balls are distributed, step-by-step was unsuccessful.

[soupcan]

Oh.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think Holliday is pretty good, but not a great given the fact he can't run or field very well.

Actually, he's a pretty damn good baserunner, 6th best in the league, according to BP.

="Edgy DC"]Holliday's splits last year: Home: .332 / .413 / .584 // .997 Away: .308 / .405 / .486 // .892

His career splits:

Home: .357 / .423 / .645 // 1.068
Away: .280 / .348 / .455 // .803

Not bad away from home, but not close to a superstar.

="Edgy DC"]Coors isn't really Coors anymore.

Coors Field Park Factor, 2008:

Batting - 125, Pitching - 126

For comparison, Citizen's Bank Park, 2008:

Batting - 102, Pitching - 101

[soupcan]

="Vince Coleman Firecracker"] ="Edgy DC"]Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Coors Field Park Factor, 2008: Batting - 125, Pitching - 126 For comparison, Citizen's Bank Park, 2008: Batting - 102, Pitching - 101

So.......it is still Coors?

Not that I know what any of those numbers mean.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="soupcan"] ="Edgy DC"] Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Why is that? It's still in Denver. Not trying to be contrary just genuinely wondering what they've done there to compensate besides playing with soggy balls (that's what she said).

The why isn't really what I'm commenting on --- cold balls, I guess is part of it. Maybe, if we read the fine print on the steroids ban, we'll see that they must've applied it to parks as well.

The what, though is an offensive park factor that's drastically reduced from where it had been.

2008: 105
2007: 109
2006: 107
2005: 110
2004: 119
2003: 110
2002: 117
2001: 121
2000: 129
1999: 125
1998: 125
1997: 113
1996: 129
1995: 128

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

Oops, put the wrong year for Coors. Here's 2008:

Park Factors
(multi-year): Batting - 107, Pitching - 107
(one-year): Batting - 105, Pitching - 106

So, it was a normal Coors-y year.

[soupcan]

Point me in a direction where I can find out what those numbers mean please.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

soupcan wrote: Point me in a direction where I can find out what those numbers mean please.

Here ya go!

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

="Edgy DC"] ="soupcan"] ="Edgy DC"] Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Why is that? It's still in Denver. Not trying to be contrary just genuinely wondering what they've done there to compensate besides playing with soggy balls (that's what she said). The why isn't really what I'm commenting on --- cold balls, I guess is part of it. Maybe, if we read the fine print on the steroids ban, we'll see that they must've applied it to parks as well. The what, though is an offensive park factor that's drastically reduced from where it had been. 2008: 105 2007: 109 2006: 107 2005: 110 2004: 119 2003: 110 2002: 117 2001: 121 2000: 129 1999: 125 1998: 125 1997: 113 1996: 129 1995: 128

You know what? I stand corrected. The historic park factor is only a 3 year span (for some reason). Coors, while still among the best hitter's parks in the game, is no longer Coors.

Fun fact! Shea was park-neutral last year!

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: Actually, he's a pretty damn good baserunner, 6th best in the league, according to BP.

Yeah, call me a dinosaur on baserunning and fielding assessments but I go by EB (eyewitness baserunning) first then consider the other stuff. I'm sure his overall contribution is a positive one, he just doesn't look good getting it done. He also doesn't rank nearly as well in those categories in 07.

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: He also doesn't rank nearly as well in those categories in 07.

But he was right there with speedsters Jason Tyner, Shane Victorino and Nate McClouth and was still rated better than Chase Utley, David Wright, and Hanley Ramirez, among many others.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vince Coleman Firecracker wrote: I think Holliday gets exposed this season. He'll only be a cut above league average away from Coors.

I love it when this stuff happens to a Rockie. I'm so sick of players from that team being regarded as if they were as good as Ted Williams. It's only a matter of time before the Rockies eventually do get the next legitimate Ted Williams. And that guy'll probably bat .500 with 70 home runs a season over there.

If I was in charge of things, I would've never put a team in Denver in the first place. I realize that the city does a terrific job of supporting the Rockies, but I loathe the way the extreme atmospheric conditions in Denver distort the statistical end of the game.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="soupcan"] ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"] ="Edgy DC"]Coors isn't really Coors anymore. Coors Field Park Factor, 2008: Batting - 125, Pitching - 126 For comparison, Citizen's Bank Park, 2008: Batting - 102, Pitching - 101 So.......it is still Coors? Not that I know what any of those numbers mean.

Coors is no longer the freak show that it was up until a few years ago, but even by present standards, it's still an extremely favorable hitter's park.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think going from 129 to 105 has kind of redefined extreme.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Vince Coleman Firecracker"]I think Holliday gets exposed this season. He'll only be a cut above league average away from Coors. I love it when this stuff happens to a Rockie. I'm so sick of players from that team being regarded as if they were as good as Ted Williams. It's only a matter of time before the Rockies eventually do get the next legitimate Ted Williams. And that guy'll probably bat .500 with 70 home runs a season over there. If I was in charge of things, I would've never put a team in Denver in the first place. I realize that the city does a terrific job of supporting the Rockies, but I loathe the way the extreme atmospheric conditions in Denver distort the statistical end of the game.

I totally disgree with this. I like that there's a team in Denver, because their fans support it first, but especially because it showcases the diversity of the conditions in our country. And seeing how the team can adapt to the advanrtages and disadvantages of its home park has always been a fun part of baseball. I care not for how fucked up the stats become.

It's windy in San Francisco, humid in Miami, pleasant in SD, cold in Detroit, etc etc. That's baseball in the USA, I say.