Helton to Boston???

by tbach81 on Jan 27, 2007 11:47 AM EST Comment 74 comments

I came across this over at foxsports.com and thought nothing of it when they first had a blurb on the topic about a month or so ago. Now, apparently the talks are for real. If this deal does go down and the BoSox only give up Ellsbury and Hansen and another mid level spect for Helton (while receiving money on his albatross of a contract), that this deal would be in favor of the BoSox. Ken Rosenthal reported on it and heres the link

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6414656

What do you guys think?

0 recs | Comment 74 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

That would be

A terrible mistake on the Red Sox part. They don't need Helton's contract, and they'd be soon regretting giving up on Hansen so soon. Also, where would Youkilis play then? The Red Sox would be better off trading one of their starting outfielders (now that Wily Mo's displaced) than their young talent.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Jan 27, 2007 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

why?

I can't see why this would make any sense. It'd create a logjam at the corners with Helton/Lowell/Youkilis and would be at best a marginal increase. Perhaps they could get some sort of asset for Lowell, but I'm not sure that Helton + whatever they get for Lowell would be better than something else they could get for Hansen & Ellsbury if they really want to trade those 2.

by mckeeno on Jan 27, 2007 12:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re: Doubtful

This rumor must have been cooked up by Rosenthal to make some interesting "Sports news".

Youkilis at this point is better than Helton.

This move makes little sense to the Red Sox. Helton to Angels would make more sense, or Helton to the A's. [right, I know, the A's can't afford Helton].
Heck, why not dump more of a bad contract onto Angelos?

"Magic's might makes it right."

by feslenraster on Jan 27, 2007 1:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You're smoking

There's no way Youk is better than Helton. He's almost certainly a better value, but he's not a better player. Youk's best year hasn't been as good as Helton's worst, and there's little reason to think that Helton won't bounce back to at least a 130 OPS+ next year. Helton is also superior to Youkilis defensively.

To me, it seems like Helton has taken a Will Clark career path. He still has as much doubles power as ever, just his HR power is gone. Also, he can still post BAs over .300 and OBPs above .400. It's not as good as he was before, but he's still a pretty good hitter.

by Brickhaus on Jan 27, 2007 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

As soon as I read that part I began opening other windows to check their stats from last season. I was about to reply to his comment until I saw you beat me to the punch.

I don't think the Sox should do this deal either, just for money reasons alone. Youks is not your typical corner infielder when it comes to power, and Lowell's power has decreased, but both are very fine players.

As for the above statement where someone called Lowell "washed up".... I don't see where a 284/339/475 line with 20HR and almost 50 doubles with great defense classifies as washed up. But maybe we have differing opinions there.

by Boxkutter on Jan 27, 2007 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

If Drew is worth $15 million a year, why isn't Helton?

And if Colorado is going to pay a few million of his contract a year, then maybe he's even worth a prospect or two. Certainly not worth Ellsbury or any other top prospect, but I guess he's maybe worth that amount of money.

I just don't see how this happens unless Youkilis or Lowell get traded. Both Boston and Colorado have logjams at 3B already.

by Galt on Jan 27, 2007 1:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Helton versus Youk

PECOTA's projections:

Helton: .303/.396/.501. Sounds about right to me.

Youkilis: .271/.376/.456. Also sounds about right.

The thing is, sure, Fenway's a hitter's park, but Coors more so. So Youkilis' projected offensive season next year is actually better. Plus he's a bunch younger, meaning his rate of decline will be less. He's also of course cheaper in terms of money and prospects.

On the other hand, Helton DOES have upside for at least a year or two. And he would give the Sox someone they can put at 1B after Lowell leaves next year. But he's got a ton of downside as well, at his age, and with the park factors somewhat masking a pretty sharp decline already.

As a Sox fan, superagainst it.

by abbreviatedman on Jan 27, 2007 1:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Parks

Fenway was a better hitters park than Coors last year, and I believe that's what the projections are based on in part.

by Brickhaus on Jan 27, 2007 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Marginal improvement at a position for a ton of money and prospects. It's apparent that there are some other areas, mainly pitching, that could be highly improved if you want to spend those resources.

by Flynn Blake on Jan 27, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA projected EQAs

Actually projects Youkilis one poin higher than Helton. This number is kind of flawed im guessing since PECOTA probably cant read into last years Coors phenomenom, but I guess Ill have to ask Nate Silver or one of those guys at BP.

A Marlins fan in exile. Keep the Fish in Miami!

by jdelavalle on Jan 27, 2007 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying anything, but

I hear Red Sox fans everywhere are already deleting their "reasons why Jacoby Ellsbury rules" lists in favor of "reasons why Jacoby Ellsbury is overrated" lists.

by mrkupe on Jan 27, 2007 1:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

or perhaps a +2 is deserving. Perfect comment.

by sabernar on Jan 27, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+17

by daveh33 on Jan 28, 2007 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Contract Term

Helton still has 6 years left on his deal. I am not sure what kind of production can be expected long term. So this seems like a deal focused on short term improvement after last year's season. It's could be a good gamble. Seeing as there really isn't anyone else left who has has a club as willing to move him as Helton.

You can't expect much in the long term but he may have a couple years left. I wonder if this also makes trading Lowell more of a possibility.

by count sutton on Jan 27, 2007 2:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Terible deal

And it's already being dismissed from the Boston side of things.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=2456
Helton isn't a significant improvement over Youkilis. If people think helton is going to return to his pre-humidor numbers... they're smoking some funky junk. Helton's biggest edge over Youkilis is based in his BA and that edge is NOT worth Helton's contract or the reported asking price.

This deal is just a colorado pipedream.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 27, 2007 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

helton

it was reported a few days back helton is feeling good and put 15 pounds back on. The power maybe returning

by krgrecw on Jan 27, 2007 3:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ha!

Did he eat the humidor? That's the only way his power is going to come back.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 27, 2007 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

That humidor that they've used for years but magically started working the second the press wanted a fun story to explain the power outage.

Wouldn't you say it's more likely that Colorado actually had a decent pitching staff and more line-drive oriented hitters last year than usual?

by limozeen on Jan 28, 2007 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Better hope

It's the humidor, otherwise what's the explanation for helton's dropoff? I don't know how much the Humidor was used in the past or how the balls were treated in regards to it, but something changed enough for Coors to go from being a hitter's delight to a pitcher's park very quickly. Not just Colorado's pitcher's were effected either, their hitters were as well.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 28, 2007 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

again

The Rockies hit just as many HR in 2006 as the year previous. The big dropoff of about 50 HR came from 2004 to 2005 when the team replaced Jeromy Burnitz (37) and Vinny Castilla (35) with Garrett Atkins (13) and Cory Sullivan (4).

Step one to lowering HRs: Line drive hitters.

From 2004 to 2006, the pitching side has undergone a similar drastic shift of a 50 HR deficit (appx. 25 lost in both years). Replacing gopherball magnets like Shawn Estes (30) and Shawn Chacon (12 in 63 IP) with groundball artists like Aaron Cook (17) and Jeff Francis (18) while vastly improving the bullpen has seemingly slowed the Coors effect.

Step two to lowering HRs: good groundball pitchers.

The humidor isn't the difference. It's the type of hitter and pitcher that Colorado puts on the field.

by limozeen on Jan 28, 2007 3:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No excuse

Then Helton has no excuse for his power loss (aside from steroids) and would certainly drop off even further by going to Fenway. The bum can stay in Colorado, we don't want him.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 28, 2007 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

YEAH!!!

A stomach virus and bad back have had nothing to do with it!!!

....errrr, ummm.... wait....

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Jan 28, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

That's got to be a hell of a stomache virus to last two years... Maybe he should take some JUICE to make his stomache feel better...

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 28, 2007 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It wasn't

just his back, but a stomach virus that leads to significant weight loss in a short amount of time sure can "take it out ouf you." Been there. Know all about it. Back injuries are are to batters as shoulder problems are to pitchers - you never know what you're gonna get and you never how long they'll linger.

I'm not arguing for Helton, but there certainly is enough there to give him the benefit of the doubt. These kind of injury swoons have been happening before steriods and they'll continue to happen after they are eliminated (if that's possible). Look at what back problems have done to Sweeney's career. Dude would have been a possible HOF'er if it wasn't for his back.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Jan 28, 2007 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Park effects

have nothing to do with the strength of the team playing in the park.

by jhelfgott on Jan 28, 2007 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

Which is, of course, why we were talking about raw HR and not park effects.

by limozeen on Jan 28, 2007 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re

i think this would be a great trade for both teams. helton would be a monster in fenway with that short porch down the right field line and he could pepper the monster all day long.

for colorado, ellsbury would give them the centerfielder they need and hansen would help with their pitching depth. if ian stewart could finally live up to his potential and eventually take over at 1st they would have a pretty solid lineup.

by fewgoodcards on Jan 27, 2007 3:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

short porch?

The "short porch down the right field line" doesn't matter much. Fenway's RF is actually very spacious, and left-handed power hitters tend to suffer for it.

Take a peek at David Ortiz' home/road splits, for example.

by FI on Jan 27, 2007 3:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Does Helton suck now?

I just looked at his home/road splits and the last couple of years he is hitting about 75 points better at home and his BB/K ratio is drastically better at home.

When the guy is 33 with 6 more years on a huge contract and he only has one skill left that isn't pretty. And when that skill seems to work in only one park it's even less pretty if he leaves the park.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 27, 2007 4:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rockies want it more

Word is the Rockies are pushing more than the Red Sox.
http://whiteyball.wordpress.com/

Whats that have to got to do with anything?

by whiteyball on Jan 27, 2007 5:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Big surprise

Look at the deal, hell, if I'm the Rockies, I'd jump on that deal in a heartbeat and try not to to split my side laughing when it was done.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 27, 2007 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I bet Koshansky is loving this

by ISC on Jan 27, 2007 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rockies 1B?

Who would take over? Ian Stewart? Koshansky? Someone else.
I bet the Rocks regret getting rid of Shealy now.

The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.

by Savoy on Jan 27, 2007 5:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Koshansky

I thought he was a virtual Shealy clone.

by wildthang on Jan 27, 2007 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baker

My money is on Jeff Baker. The guy has shown he can hit, but he's blocked at 3B and the corner OF spots. 1B seems like a natural move for him, with Koshansky as a fallback option.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Jan 27, 2007 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baker

It would open up a spot for Jeff Baker.....however it will involve either Brad Hawpe or Garrett Atkins moving back to their "natural" positions of 1B with Jeff Baker taking over in either RF or 3B.

In the long term, it would open up a spot for Koshansky or Ian Stewart in 2008.

by sg8335aa on Jan 28, 2007 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt

the Sox will agree to give up Hansen or Ellsbury let alone both. If they do, it would be a huge mistake. I would be surprised if Helton has better value over the next 6 years than either of those 2.

According to Buster Olney, the deal that is in the works is Helton and some cash for Lowell, Tavarez and prospects. The Rockies want Hansen, but the Sox don't seem like they're going to give him up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2745139

by drob320 on Jan 27, 2007 6:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Value over next 6 years

This a "win now" trade for Sox if it is indeed true - sacrificing some future for the next few years.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Jan 27, 2007 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah...

you're right, but I just meant the Sox would really regret it 3 years from now if they trade away youth then don't win.

by drob320 on Jan 27, 2007 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Why would the Rockies part with Tavares, the CF they worked so hard to get, in a dealing leaving them without a CF? Also, why would the Red Sox want yet another OF, let alone another CF, with their large abundance at the position? Something does not sound right.

by Havok1517 on Jan 27, 2007 11:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my bad

got julian and willy mixed up there a sec.

by Havok1517 on Jan 27, 2007 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One Thing....

Honestly, this trade would only make sense for the Sox if (by chance) baseball allows steriods back in the game. Heltons "pre-steriod" numbers were Pujols-esque, but now he's just an average player at best. Sure, you can blame the "sudden and dramtic loss in power" on his back problems, but we all know....

Reminds me of that one winter when Ivan Rodriguez "mysteriously" lost 20 pounds following the huge outcry of steriods.

by fartballs on Jan 27, 2007 8:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

steroids

. . . are you saying that you think Todd Helton was a steroid user? Are you serious?

The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.

by Savoy on Jan 27, 2007 11:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Helton

had a scary stomach virus in April/May that caused him to lose 20 pounds in a week. Look at his April numbers before the virus.....he was CRUSHING the ball.

He was never able to put the weight back on during the season.

by sg8335aa on Jan 28, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

scary stomach virus

to cause him to only hit 35 homers over the course of the last 24 months.

I think even the Alien spores caused less damage than that "virus".

Yes, of course Helton was on steroids.

by Galt on Jan 28, 2007 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Crazy

Lets be serious people. If the Rockies are really going to eating 45 Million of the contract. Something that must be total BS. Unless Olney is calculating $$$ moving to and fro the deal is a complete steal for Boston. You're talking about getting a great player for 9 million dollars a year. In these kind of times that would be an absolute bargain.

The Sox would have to be sending some significant talent in return.

by RMF on Jan 27, 2007 9:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To those who think this is good for Boston.

Would you really pay about $10 million a year for five years for a first baseman's 33-37 age seasons when he's hit only 35 HRs combined over the last two years in Coors? Let alone trade away valuable young players as well.

by abbreviatedman on Jan 27, 2007 9:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

value

The guy is going to be valuable as a hitter and a defender no matter how many home runs he hits. The guy gets on base at an elite clip.

Waiting for Travis Buck

by Furious George on Jan 27, 2007 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so does youk...

who they already own, won't have to send anything in return and they pay peanuts to him compared with Helton.

by nheck on Jan 27, 2007 11:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Youks

will be replacing Lowell at third. I do not think Lowell can put the numbers he did last year, and if you look, he tailed off drastically in the second half. Lowell is a FA after this year, so the Rockies only carry him for 07 or even deal him at the deadline.

Tavarez has had success in Coors. In terms of minor leaguers, the Sox were not giving up top prospects at the deadline last year, why now? I see them moving a Gabbard, or Pauley or Edgar Martinez, but not a Hansen, Delcarman, and certainly not Ellsbury, Bucholz, or Bowden.

I think if Colo eats half the contract and takes Lowell, Tavarez and say Gabbard or Martinez, it is a good deal for Boston. Personally, Id like Colo to take Matt Clement.

I bet you this gets done by Wed or Thurs.

by Robinson Checo on Jan 28, 2007 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

the Rockies could move Lowell to Philly since all they have there is Wes Helms.

by Havok1517 on Jan 28, 2007 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

homeruns

the sox dont want helton for his power.. If they can put him in the 2 hole they'd be guaranteed a guy on base 40% of the time infront of ortiz and manny.. That will score a lot of runs

by krgrecw on Jan 27, 2007 10:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

as opposed to

Youkilis doing it for, what, 1/5th the cost?

It doesn't matter though, the Sox aren't going to do the proposed eal or any deal involving Helton. They'd have to get the 'perfect' (i.e. irrefusible) offer and the deals discussed aren't even close to that.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 27, 2007 10:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

okay...

if the deal is helton for lowell, tavarez, and prospects, then any youkilis-helton comparison is totally irrelevant. the sox will have youkilis playing an infield corner whether the deal goes through or not.

by jpahk on Jan 28, 2007 12:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

correct

Right, the appropriate comparison would be Mike Lowell vs. Todd Helton, because Lowell would be the guy that Helton replaces in the lineup.

by FI on Jan 28, 2007 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bobby Abreu sucks!

oh wait...

by limozeen on Jan 28, 2007 2:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lowell

I like Lowell a lot, but trading him now is probably a smart move. They got him at his absolute low value and selling high on him is a sound move.
The thing is, Helton's value isn't going to bump up. As has been discussed above, Coors is still a hitter's park, he's still benefitting from it, yet his production has dropped significantly. It will only get worse going to Boston.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 28, 2007 4:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Coors has not changed

The park effects will be the same this year. The press jumped on it because for the first couple of months it was a different park, then it reverted.

That humidor has been in use for years.

Check out Heltons home/road splits. You will see about 70 points in batting average and bigger difference in K/BB as well as Slg.

It's been this way for the last 5 years and he has never hit more than 12 road homers in a year in the last 5 years. Averaging around 9 or 10 per season.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 28, 2007 4:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it wan't just the first couple months

coors played as a neutral park for FIVE months. it was only in september (when, supposedly, they ran out of humidified balls) that the old coors returned.

by jpahk on Jan 28, 2007 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So...

one month countered 5 months? That must have been one hell of a month.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 28, 2007 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

shrug

here are some numbers.

april-august:
67 home games
330 RS (4.93/G)
295 RA (4.40/G)

september:
14 home games
126 RS (9.00/G)
118 RA (8.43/G)

"a hell of a month" is a good way of putting it.

by jpahk on Jan 28, 2007 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This isn't Olympic Diving

where you can chop the highs or lows you don't like ;)

August had about 6 runs per game. The next highest month was about 5.3?

The unadjusted run support is 5.62.

If we adjust September to be 6 runs per game like August it would be 5.1/G which is still high.

And if we allow for September to be higher by approx the difference August is higher to a tune of 7 runs per game it would be 5.28.

Obviously chopping the highest/lowest month will affect any result. But even moving it with a reasonable result the numbers still show crazy splits.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 28, 2007 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

QUOTE:
shrug

here are some numbers.

april-august:
67 home games
330 RS (4.93/G)
295 RA (4.40/G)

september:
14 home games
126 RS (9.00/G)
118 RA (8.43/G)

"a hell of a month" is a good way of putting it.
END QUOTE

april-august:
66 away games
279 RS (4.22/G)

Now look above at the same period of home games. .7 runs per game.

I could care less about September, there is already a huge discrepancy without chopping the month that offends you.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 28, 2007 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

i don't understand what you're getting at. i'm not chopping anything off. i was originally responding to the poster who said that the park effect will go right back to what it was, and that the whole humidor fuss was just a product of the media attention after a couple of months. i don't believe that to be the case, and i produced some evidence which indicates that when they ran out of humid baseballs in september, scoring went up by 100%. if you want to look at that data and still call it just a media story, okay, whatever.

pedrophile, on the other hand--i have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

by jpahk on Jan 29, 2007 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my point

Is that just about every single hitter in the lineup had huge difference in their home/away splits. And when we leave september out and purely use scoring like you are doing you can see that there is still a huge difference between home/away.

If we ignore September it's still a huge hitters park.

Yes September was a very flukey month and did taint the numbers. But they didn't make a neutral park into the best hitters park. They put the best hitters park into and even better hitters park.

I really don't get the statement about running out of baseballs in the humidor. How is this possible? If they ran out of baseballs how do they play games? If they have baseballs just put them in the humidor. You pull out ones for todays games and put in new ones for future games.

Sounds strange to me.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 29, 2007 9:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

clarification

overall, hitters perform better at home than on the road; then on top of that, there is park effect. so if you had a team whose level of offense was exactly the same home and away, you'd have to conclude that their home park is a pitcher's park. the fact that the rockies scored more runs at home than on the road during april-august does NOT mean that coors was playing as a hitter's park during that time. you have to look at what the rockies AND the opponents were doing. that's why i looked at both the rockies and their opponents and concluded that september was a crazy time to be playing at coors--18 runs per game. the rest of the season? rockies+opponents averaged 9.33 runs per game at home and 9.33 on the road. that looks like a neutral park to me--EVEN IF individual rockies hitters performed (much) better at home.

by jpahk on Jan 29, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by the way

i've totally lost track of what we were originally talking about, and what it may or may not have to do with todd helton.

by jpahk on Jan 29, 2007 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whether

Helton is still being helped by Coors (he is).

I agree about the humidor running out of baseballs sounding like nonsense. When you get new baseballs, you put them in the humidor. When you need baseballs you take them out. The team doesn't try to keep a whole season's worth of baseballs at the park. Also, if MLB actually thought the humidors were having that much of an effect, there's no way MLB would have discussed putting them in all the parks becuase there's no way MLB wants to drive down HR's.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 29, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

humidor

yeah, i have to admit it sounds awfully fishy when they claim they ran out of humid baseballs. i don't know exactly how long they need to be in there before the humidor affects them significantly.

i wish i could remember where i heard about this supposed running-out-of-baseballs story in september. maybe i have the details totally wrong. it would certainly make more sense if the humidor had simply broken in september, rather than running out of baseballs.

by jpahk on Jan 29, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Story

There was an article talking about a high scoring game and the reporter used the title "broken humidor" or something like that. He was joking that the humidor wasn't working and that is why the high scoring game.

The baseballs are typically stored for a week to have full effect but need less to have some effect. Coors field is typically at 10% humidity and MLB stores it's balls purchased from Costa Rica at 40%. Coors stores their baseballs at the exact same humidity as MLB does.

Yes September was crazy. But we should expect deviations and some crazy months. Maybe not that crazy but still.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 29, 2007 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Coors - Splits

Carroll had a 928 OPS at home, really if you need to read further ... well here goes:

I included hitters with 100 at bats or more per split and also included team totals.

HOME

Garret Atkins 15 HR 346 BA 416 OBP 583 SLG 999OPS
Matt Holliday 22 HR 373 BA 440 OBP 692 SLG 1.132OPS
Todd Helton 8 HR 338 BA 445 OBP 531 SLG 976OPS
Jamey Carroll 2 HR 375 BA 445 OBP 483 SLG 928OPS
Brad Hawpe 6 HR 282 BA 369 OBP 454 SLG 822OPS
Clint Barmes 3 HR 231 BA 283 OBP 357 SLG 640OPS
Cory Sullivan 0 HR 249 BA 312 OBP 357 SLG 667OPS

Team(Home) 75 HR 294 BA 366 OBP 459 SLG 825OPS
Team(Road) 82 HR 247 BA 316 OBP 408 SLG 724OPS

ROAD
Garret Atkins 14 HR 313 BA 402 OBP 531 SLG 933OPS
Matt Holliday 12 HR 280 BA 333 OBP 485 SLG 819OPS
Todd Helton 7 HR 266 BA 360 OBP 421 SLG 781OPS
Jamey Carroll 3 HR 220 BA 304 OBP 318 SLG 623OPS
Brad Hawpe 16 HR 303 BA 395 OBP 571 SLG 966OPS
Clint Barmes 4 HR 210 BA 246 OBP 315 SLG 561OPS
Cory Sullivan 2 HR 282 BA 329 OBP 440 SLG 769OPS

Team(Home) 75 HR 294 BA 366 OBP 459 SLG 825OPS
Team(Road) 82 HR 247 BA 316 OBP 408 SLG 724OPS

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 28, 2007 7:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

September

Was roughly equivalent to their home numbers with an 838 OPS for the month. With the team OPS sitting somewhere around OPS 775 (I just averaged the two which isn't 100% correct) - this means for September they hit 60 points of OPS higher.

And when weighting it over 6 months that is 10 OPS points. Significant yes. But they Still hit 90 points higher the rest of the year Home versus away instead of the 100.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 28, 2007 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So

what we should take from this is that Brad Hawpe is the first hitter to ever need a trade out of Colorado? 571 road slugging vs 454 home slugging - that's bizzare.

by williethekid20 on Jan 29, 2007 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By all accounts

tis dead. Can't blame either side really.

For Boston - that's an albatross of a contract to handle ... and demanding the Rockies to cover half was fair, IMO, considering the age and decline Helton is going through. Still a good hitter, but not nearly as worth it as he was a couple years ago. Made no sense for them to even consider giving up a good prospect like Ellsbury, who could take over by 2008 in CF. Hansen was an iffy call. Now, if they were instrasigent about Delcarmen, that's a separate issue, but the other two, they were probably right to hold firm on. How big of an upgrade is helton really ... I think that's fair to ask.

For Colorado - Giving up someone like Helton, in this baseball climate, should demand a decent return, and Lowell/Tavarez was definitely not enough, and adding Delcarmen in there probably wasn't either, unless the goal was a pure salary dump.

It was going to be a tough bridge to cross ... and in the end, I think it might make sense for both teams to not have made the move.

by toonsterwu on Jan 30, 2007 2:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs