Prior to the humidor, I would look at any Rockie hitter who finished out of the top five in the NL in OPS at his position as a liability that needed replaced. Now it's closer to a more natural top eight that I use as a threshold. Last season, the Rockies had three positions qualify, but perhaps more galling was how bad two of those three were. Had we had even moderate increases in production from Helton/Atkins at first and Taveras in center, had we removed Jayson Nix from duty sooner, the season could have turned out much differently. To make this point clear, notice that the World Series champions had just as many failed slots in their lineup, the difference (well besides them also having Cole Hamels) was the degree of failure by the Rockies trio of misery.

2008 by position with NL OPS rank in parentheses:

1B: .254/.348/.403 (#15; Phillies #4)

2B: .252/.305/.404 (#11; Phillies #1)

3B: .293/.343/.468 (#5; Phillies #15)

SS: .272/.326/.423 (#7; Phillies #6)

C:  .250/.347/.441 (#3; Phillies #10)

LF: .323/.403/.531 (#1; Phillies #5)

CF: .258/.316/.333 (#15; Phillies #4)

RF: .288/.382/.500 (#3; Phillies #12)

So, how much confidence should we have that there will be a different story in 2009?

Carlos Gonzalez (.242/.273/.361) on the basis of his 2008 non-adjusted numbers wouldn't seem to be much of an upgrade offensively over Willy Taveras in center, but there are a host of reasons why we should expect him to be a considerable improvement in 2009, ranging from Gonzalez switching to a more favorable park and league, to his age and scouting profile and the general consensus that Taveras' skills don't have much, if any, room for improvement at the plate. The question for Rockies fans will be how much of an improvement will Gonzalez be, and will it be enough to offset the step down from Holliday to Ryan Spilborghs that we take in left. That should be the other question for Rockies fans, how much offense, exactly, are we going to lose in left field?

Spilborghs' career line of .302/.374/.466 isn't far removed from Holliday's .321/.409/.538 line from last season. What's more, in terms of getting on base, Spilborghs has shown improvement in each of his three MLB seasons culminating in last season's .407 OBP, which is almost an exact match for Holliday's .409. Where Spilly clearly falls short is in his power production, which just happens to be the arena that Gonzalez has a decisive advantage over Taveras in. Let me put it another way, over the course of a full season, the Rockies project to lose about 15 extra base hits in the switch from Holliday to Spilborghs, but gain over 20 in the switch from Taveras to Gonzalez with a small, predictable step forward from CarGo, not even a real breakthrough. The key to improving on 2008's hitting performance in the outfield will be in optimizing the lineup to take advantage of the net gain in XBH, but not expose Gonzalez' weak on base skills as much as Taveras' were. An optimal lineup with this team would have Spilborghs leading off and Gonzalez batting relatively deep.

While concerns about how our hitting will fare without Holliday seem relatively overblown, where the Rockies will take a big hit with this trade is in the baserunning department. Taveras and Holliday were the team's best, stealing successfully an immensely valuable 96/105 times in 2008, and otherwise providing added runs throughout the season by taking advatage of advancement opportunities. For all their virtues, Gonzalez and Spilborghs simply are incapable of duplicating that performance. How are the Rockies going to make this up? Again, this goes back to lineup construction. The hope for me is that this gain comes through better efficiency than we saw last season. Clint Hurdle wasted an inordinate amount of outs last season by insistently putting Taveras at the top of his lineup cards, completely nullifying Willy's positive effects on the basepaths by denying better hitters more plate opportunities. Without Taveras or a similarly speed oriented player available, it's my hope that Hurdle will be more inclined to build a lineup around who truly sets the table for the team. Do I have any confidence that the man will actually make the right decision and do this? That's a different question, but I like the chances of it happening better without Taveras around.

In sum, last week's trade actually keeps some overall offensive stability in the outfield, and leaves the onus of improving 2008's offensive lag onto the infield, where it would have been even had we kept Holliday. The right side in particular will be the key to the Rockies competing next season. Todd Helton and Jeff Baker/Clint Barmes have to rebound if the Rockies expect to get back into the playoff hunt.

The cutoff for being a top eight first baseman in the NL in OPS last season was .845, about .100 points higher than what we had last season, which is what the Cubs and Mets got from Lee and Delgado mostly. Helton can actually put up a line similar to his 2006 .302/.404/.476 numbers and still be helping the team be competitive. Of course, we'd like him to be more like 2007, but let's not get too greedy for the the 35 year old with back issues. As for second base, that's more problematic. The Rockies seem to be ignoring what everybody else sees as a problem, but the upgrade that's needed here to be competitive in the NL is relatively small, only about .050 points of OPS, which possibly could be made up simply by having fewer Jayson Nix starts. Still, I see a little too much confidence from the team for Baker/Barmes, two players who have had a wild history of highs and lows. The lows, and the strong possibility of a replay of them, are what worry me.

The baseline for a competitive NL centerfielder is fairly high, something along the lines of Mike Cameron's .244/.332/.479 for Milwaukee last season. As the Phillies at third showed in 2008, it is possible for an NL contender to have one major hole in the lineup and be successful, but without a Hamels like ace fronting our rotation, I don't know if we have that luxury, so the closer Gonzalez gets to that .800 OPS line the better.  We can earn some wiggle room at these other positions with a strong season from the left side of our infield, Tulo and Stewart are already well positioned competitively despite being very young and not having what we would consider peak seasons last year. Overall, it looks like the prognosis for recovery for our offense in 2009 is decent, but I would really like to have a more reliable bet at second.

I'll look at the state of the rest of the NL West's (sans San Diego) offenses on Thursday.

Jack Etkin at the Rocky Mountain News had a couple of blog entries the last two days that deserve some notice. First up is an update on Franklin Morales from Venezuela. To recap what we had seen in season two of this telenovela:

1. Franklin's mechanics went way out of whack over the winter
   
2. Franklin couldn't throw strikes
3. Franklin's velocity was down

The blog post has encouraging news on points one and two for the third season, but no word on the velo. Perhaps as encouraging, however is the fact that the Rockies are keeping tabs on Morales at all, taking a much more proactive approach to his offseason with Marty DeMerritt keeping a careful watch. If we're looking at a real upgrade to the rotation next season, spending money on a quality free agent is the best option, but since that seems to be off the table, Morales should still be our second best bet. The post makes it clear that the Rockies aren't counting on this, but would certainly welcome Morales coming into his own this season.

*****************

For EY2, his absence from the AFL this past week was due to a strained hamstring but wasn't serious. Young's defense in center field gets a better review than I've seen elsewhere, I expect he'll be able to improve more going forward. Young's potential spot on the 25 man roster in the event he makes the team out of Spring Training would be the one occupied Scott Podsednik last season, only he'd be more of an offensive substitute than a defensive one. I think going offense out of that slot is probably a wiser use of resources and should give the Rockies more bang for the limited playing time this player is typically given.

Let me start by pointing out the top relievers for each NL playoff team in 2008 by WXRL, a stat used by Baseball Prospectus which is a more effective way of measuring relievers than saves or ERA. The numbers represent a value of how many wins over a replacement level reliever each pitcher was:

Chicago

1. Carlos Marmol 5.152
2. Kerry Wood 2.232
3. Sean Marshall 0.617

Philadelphia

1. Brad Lidge 7.591
2. J.C. Romero 2.227
3. Ryan Madson 2.002
4. Chad Durbin 1.751
   

Los Angeles

1. Corey Wade 2.841
2. Hong-Chi Kuo 2.714
3. Jonathan Broxton 2.216
4. Takashi Saito 1.947
   

Milwaukee

1. Salomon Torres 3.016
2. Carlos Villanueva 1.469
3. Brian Shouse 1.053

Los Angeles and Philadelphia both had deep pens, with their fifth best reliever rating better than the third best from either NL Central team. Let's look at the Rockies:

Colorado

1. Brian Fuentes 3.619
2. Taylor Buchholz  2.528
3. Ryan Speier 0.720

The Rockies bullen in 2008 was more like a run of the mill squad than an NL elite one, and if they didn't make up the difference in the rotation like the Cubs and Brewers did, than the end result of the season shouldn't be surprising. Still, believe it or not, 2007 was much the same, just substitute Manny Corpas and Matt Herges' names for Fuentes and Buchholz. Here are  Huston Street's numbers over the last four seasons:

• 2005: 4.356
  
• 2006: 3.260
  
• 2007: 2.234
• 2008: 1.943

Okay, so there's an obvious bad direction here, which is fodder for the naysayers, but even 2008 showed him to be a valuable reliever. Whether he remains so depends on his ability to reverse that trend. What reason do we have to expect that he might? Better health will be a start, switching to a weaker league with teams more unfamiliar with him will also help. Street's still a pretty young pitcher at 25, so there isn't a lot of reason not to expect some sort of bounce-back in 2009 to his career norm (he averages a 2.948 WXRL over those four seasons). If we don't trade him before the start of the season, we should expect to see him once more be at least a two win reliever in Denver.

If the trend continues downward, we'll know we've gotten ourselves a dud on our hands, but there should be enough time to figure that out before the July trading deadline where he would still be considered of value for many GM's. Street's beauty is a reputation that hasn't been too sullied by moments of underperformance. For a quality bullpen next season, the Rockies are hoping that Street and Buchholz maintain or improve their 2008 levels of performance and that either or both of Luis Vizcaino (2.081 WXRL in 2007) or Manny Corpas can return to their 2007 level. How is this an upgrade over 2008? Before last season the main hope for three 2+ win relievers was in Corpas, Viz and a bounceback from Fuentes, with the idea that maybe Casey Weathers would be contributing as well by the end of the season. So this isn't an appreciably more comfortable position to be in, but compared to where we were with the pen three weeks ago, banking solely on returns of Corpas and Viz, it's a little easier to see how we could pull it off.

Arizona's bullpen does not have the lights out leader that Lidge or Marmol were last season. Neither do they have the quality depth that Los Angeles has so they are in a similar boat to the Rockies, albeit with fewer pitchers who have been 2+ win relievers in the past. They are hoping that losses of Juan Cruz and Brandon Lyon are made up for by a rebound by Jon Rauch and a step forward by Leo Rosales or Jailen Peguero among others. Juan Morillo is a better horse to bet on than either, so the Rockies still have the edge in prospect depth despite losing Casey Weathers for next season and Pedro Strop altogether. There is a high quality wild card for the D-backs in 2008 first rounder Daniel Schlereth, and his addition combined with Strop's loss for the Rockies has helped Arizona make up considerable ground in this department.

San Francisco's bad relievers ate too much into the work of their relatively few good arms in 2008. I don't think they have enough quality arms to change that in 2009. The Dodgers look to once again be in the best position as far as relief work goes, the Rockies will need to have several things go right for this to change and make up ground.

************

The Rockies chances of trading Garrett Atkins will take a hit if Minnesota lands Casey Blake as a free agent, the good news is that this would leave the Dodgers relatively weak at third base. Last season, Blake had an EQA of .281, with Blake DeWitt lagging in the Garrett Atkins/Mark Reynolds neighborhood at .261. Ian Stewart was on the tier in between at .269. Going forward, Stewart can probably figure to be closer to Blake's contribution next season, DeWitt may make some gains as well, I can't say I have the same kind of confidence in Reynolds given his disinclination to change his approach at the plate. If you look at the cast of characters for next year, you'll see that third base is one position that we need a stronger contribution than LA or Arizona from if we want to win the division in 2009 or even in subsequent years.

At catcher we hope Iannetta is close to Martin, but expecting him to be much better is probably foolish. Arizona hopes Snyder isn't too far behind those two, but he's clearly the third rung. At first base, Helton vs. Tracy works okay, but Loney's moving ahead. At second, who knows where LA or AZ are going, but the Rockies will only get average production there unless they open the piggy bank. Shortstop should be another push, but that's only if Tulo rebounds to catch up with Drew. If LA re-signs Furcal, the Dodgers will have an edge when he plays. In right, Ethier was very good, Hawpe a tier below him, and Upton a tier below that. Long term though, this isn't a great position for us, similarly to catcher for the D-backs, and that's one of the reasons why Carlos Gonzalez was seen as a key pick-up. If his bat develops into his raw talent, the Rockies will stay competitive with the other two teams. In left field for 2009, we're competitive as long as the Dodgers don't sign Manny, and that will also have a dramatic effect on center as next season's basic formula is:

• Matt Kemp>Chris Young>Carlos Gonzalez>Andruw Jones or Juan Pierre

Long term, our relative position improves with Fowler.

What I'm trying to point out here is that at the end of the day, the one  position where the Rockies should be able to expect a clear advantage in coming seasons over their divisional peers is third base. No pressure, Stewie.

With Mike Hampton entering free agency, the Rockies eight year folly of a contract is officially over. Well, over except for a deferred $19 million signing bonus that starts kicking Mike a little extra Christmas cash over the next ten seasons. The Rockies already pre-funded this, so it's not taking from the team's current operating budget (nor is the $6 million buyout for a 2009 option that you might see mentioned some places, since that was paid and converted to a signing bonus when he was traded to the Braves via the Marlins.) At the time Mike signed his contract, I remember reading how foolish people thought these deferred payments were for the players, that even conservative stock portfolios would easily beat the 3% interest. Ha! Who's the fool now? Hampton's bonus is just north of $24 million today, while $19 million invested in a basket of stocks the Dow Jones Industrial Index on the date of his signing would be worth a little over $15 million as of this afternoon's close.

Yeah, I think I'm going to go cry now.

With today being the opening of free agent season, I thought it would be good to point out that every team in our division should be looking to the market to shore up their rotation. It's becoming clear, however, that just one team (Los Angeles) is intending to do that. The Padres have laid claim to team irrelevant, so similarly to the Giants before last season, I'm just going to ignore them completely to save myself some work. At any rate, here's a current look at what the other four teams are sporting as far as starters:

Arizona:

• Brandon Webb
• Dan Haren
• Max Scherzer
  
• Doug Davis
• some junkballer that makes the Rockies look bad probably, right now Yusmeiro Petit
  

Really, that's a scary enough front end that it should make up for the back end woes, but 2008 proved that it's not scary enough to make up for the D-backs anemic offense. Arizona also continues to have a depth issue which leaves them vulnerable to injury. Will AZ's offense see more improvement in 2009 to give Haren and Webb more support?

Los Angeles:

• Chad Billingsley
• Clayton Kershaw
• Hiroki Kuroda
• Larry
  
• Moe/Curly/Shep

Okay, so it's not quite that bad for Los Angeles, James McDonald is a decent prospect, but he's an unknown at the MLB level. Kershaw may take a step forward next season, but add him to McDonald and it seems to be a re-enactment of Rockies 2008 that the Dodgers are trying to pull. I do have confidence that the Dodgers will sign somebody better than Kip Wells to help the unstable youth situation (apparently they're looking at Randy Johnson), but for all intents and purposes, this rotation looks to be building for 2010 as much as we are.

San Francisco:

• Tim Lincecum
• Matt Cain
• Jonathan Sanchez
• Barry Zito
• Noah Lowry? Kevin Pucetas?
  

The Giants are more relevant than the Padres now with the latter gutting their rotation, but San Fran probably still needs some offensive help to compete in the NL West. Their rotation shows the same ills at the bottom as everybody else, but they have more pitching depth than either the Dodgers or D-backs

Colorado:

• Aaron Cook
• Ubaldo Jimenez
• Jeff Francis
• Jorge De La Rosa
• Greg Smith

Comparing the Rockies three LHP's at the bottom to the Giants three LHP's is somewhat encouraging. Last season our three combined for a VORP of about 50, but about thirty of that came from Smith's fluky good year. Still if you're going to knock him off that pedestal, you probably at the same time have to raise Francis, and if we're lucky, De La Rosa. The good thing about the Rockies is that their depth here is superior to anybody else's in the division. Breakthroughs by Franklin Morales, Jason Hirsh or Greg Reynolds are more likely than the AAA pitchers of the other three teams.

So how much are we going to miss that #1 guy, and is our strength at the bottom of the rotation enough to make up for it? Eh, probably not.

Let's look at Arizona first, consider that Webb and Haren were at least three wins ahead of Cook and Jimenez last season. Although I somewhat doubt this, U-ball might be able to make up some of that ground with improvement, but getting three more wins than Scherzer/Davis/Petit from Francis/De La Rosa/Smith isn't going to be easy. I'm particularly wary of Scherzer; as long as he's healthy, he's going to be very effective, and I can see that Arizona trio matching our 3-5 next season if they pitch all year. Where we'll be able to make up the most on the D-backs is with sixth starters, and because you're talking about unknowns there, it's hard to predict. The only two ways I see us cutting that three game deficit completely from the top of the rotation is with significant time lost by Webb, Haren and Scherzer or with a combined JDLR/Morales breakout. If Arizona loses a combined 20 starts from their top three, or if we get complete quality seasons from both of our most likely two down rotation candidates, the Rockies will have a better rotation in 2009, otherwise we have to make up the ground via the lineup or bullpen. I suppose there is a chance, however slight, that Greg Smith repeats his 2008 performance and inherits the Tom Glavine mantel for being the craftiest lefty on the planet, but of these three unlikely scenarios, this one seems the most remote.

How about with Los Angeles? Right now, the Dodgers rotation is too much in flux to know for sure, but Billingsley plus Kershaw plus Kuroda is not nearly far enough ahead of Cook plus Jimenez plus Francis to make up for projected replacement level performances at the bottom two slots. If the Dodgers sign RJ, they still figure to have a significant gap in the rotation when he needs to rest his back. Unfortunately, I know this isn't how they're going to enter next season. I just don't know who it will be that we have to worry about. My hope is that they get shut out of the starters completely, but barring that, I hope they overpay for somebody on a five year contract and that it's not Sabathia. Anybody else and I think we've still got a decent chance of staying with them in 2009.

While the Giants top two starters had a 4.5 game edge on the Rockies top two starters last season, the next three slots in the rotation were so bad for the Giants that we made up that entire deficit and the two teams were more or less a wash with their starters. Okay, that's a lie, but the Rockies could have made that ground up if it wasn't for Mark Redman/Livan Hernandez/Greg Reynolds. At any rate, thus far the Giants don't seem to be trying to patch the leaks in the rotation, actually looking to deal Sanchez if it helps their offense. Lacking depth at the moment, I think they'll have to continue to rob Peter to pay Paul unless they're willing to part with some of their highly thought of prospects. Otherwise it's going to be a few years of waiting before they're good again, but in this division they certainly could get lucky.

How the Matt Holliday trade has gotten interpreted seems to hinge on the confidence level that Carlos Gonzalez will ever turn his storied tools into actual MLB worthy baseball skills. If you are 100 percent certain that he'll be successful in this endeavor, the trade looks like a theft from the Rockies end. If you are 100 percent certain that he'll flop, Billy Beane looks like an omniscient super-genius who needs to get hired away by Goldman Sachs, pronto. There's a whole spectrum of variations in between the two extremes.

Beane's pulled fast ones over Dan O'Dowd in the past (remember that Jermaine Dye/Neifi Perez/Scruyu Raquis three way?) in deals of unproven but promising commodities for single players. In fact, in his three trade history with O'Dowd prior to this week, Oakland's come out decisively ahead, receiving Jermaine Dye, Ron Gant, Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick for Robin Jennings, Mario Encarnacion, Jose Ortiz, Todd Belitz, Eric Byrnes and Omar Quintanilla. It's not a pretty tradition we have to look at here for a guide of what to expect, and O'Dowd's springtime ulcers will probably come over anxiety that Gonzalez doesn't turn out to be the second coming of Ortiz for the Rockies. Nevertheless, I think simplifying the exchange down to a Holliday for Gonzalez swap misses something crucial.

First of all let's start by making clear that most trades aren't competitions between the dealing parties, they can be win-win or lose-lose as well, the only real time when this isn't possible is when the teams involved are dealing like for like, players at the same age, salary and position. That's not the case here, either or both of the Rockies and Athletics could benefit from this deal. So I'm going to break down what has to happen for each team to consider this trade a success, and while trades involving prospects could have windows of five seasons or more, for purposes of this exercise, I'm going to give each team three seasons to accomplish their goals:

For Oakland:

• Matt Holliday continues to perform at the level he has the last two seasons in 2009
• OR Holliday doesn't perform at that level but helps the A's reach the playoffs anyway.
• OR Holliday contributes some and then returns in trade at the July deadline something similar to what the Athletics gave up for him.
• OR Oakland re-signs Holliday before he's a free agent and he accomplishes either of the first two bullett points before 2011.
• OR the compensation draft picks Oakland receives for letting him walk in 2010 are seen as likely upgrades on Street/Gonzalez/Smith.

For Colorado:

• The sum contribution of Street plus Smith plus Gonzalez to the team in any one season in 2009-2011 over players currently on the Rockies roster betters Holliday's anticipated contribution over his replacement (currently Ryan Spilborghs).
• OR the sum contribution of those three plus the contribution of a free agent player signed with 2009 money budgeted for Holliday likewise contributes.
  
• OR the sum value of any received player(s) from trades of one of the three players we received from Oakland when added to who's left from the deal likewise benefits the Rockies.
• OR these players don't contribute to the level of Holliday but are nonetheless instrumental to the Rockies reaching the playoffs.
• OR any one of these players contributes at Holliday's level sometime over the next three seasons.
• OR the Rockies receive a player with the potential of matching Holliday via trade or draft compensation for these three players.

Did I miss anything? Colorado was trading one season of Holliday, so one season of Holliday's production over what we otherwise have is what we're looking to replace. Anything added beyond that goes to making up for the lost draft picks, and once that value's been replaced, we're getting gravy. While some of the "win" thresholds for the Rockies are comparatively easy, others might be more difficult than they appear. The only player received potentially capable of replacing Holliday's added value one for one is Gonzalez. If Gonzalez isn't better than Dexter Fowler or Ryan Spilborghs next season, the onus of replacing Holliday's added value then falls on Smith plus Street plus a possible free agent signed with the leftover Holliday money. The two pitchers combined aren't going to cut it by themselves, we better hope we find a bargain with that cash. None of these scenarios are going to be easy if CarGo doesn't develop, if Smith doesn't show better fastball command. However, making the playoffs, an instant justification for any trade, is probably going to be easier for Colorado than it is for Oakland given the different levels of competition in the two West divisions.

Because they got more players and more money in this exchange, the Rockies do have more roads to success than Oakland does. There's also a risk factor at play, if Matt Holliday gets seriously injured early, that's it for Oakland, the trade's a loss. If any one of the players the Rockies received gets injured, well, pray it's not Gonzalez, but there will still be roads open to making the overall return a success.

The Rockies also benefit in that the positions that are being replaced by Gonzalez, Street and Smith were so bad in 2008, and Ryan Spilborghs is such a decent replacement for Holliday, that the added value bar seems to be a lot lower to reach for the Rockies than people seem to be realizing. All three of the new parts will be replacing a bare minimum level of perfomance from their predecessors. Street, realize, isn't replacing Brian Fuentes, since Fuentes' departure is a separate issue, already factored into the 2009 equation before this trade took place. Instead, Huston's bumping out the guy who would otherwise be our seventh best reliever. Similarly, Smith needs to be evaluated in comparison to the performance of the most likely candidate for the fifth starter's job had he not arrived, either Jason Hirsh or Greg Reynolds. Finally, the bar of improvement over Willy Taveras, due to Wily T's inability to get on base or hit for power, in center field just is not that difficult a hurdle for Gonzalez to clear. We do have to factor in the cost of downgrading the bench from Spilborghs to Eric Young Jr. or Christian Colonel (who's having a great winter, BTW) or whoever we sign, but that won't be nearly as significant as the exchanges taking place in the starting lineup in evaluating this trade.

Now, with this relative ease of coming out with a winning trade also comes a cost for O'Dowd. Even not taking Matt Holliday's iconic status among Rockies fans into account, there's no room for error in this trade for our GM. His history of exchanges with Beane has shown the Rockies to be more or less a AAAA farm club for the Athletics. We've been the place where Oakland can come for a quick and painless upgrade at near zero expense. This can't be the case this time around. The Rockies need to act and play at the level of a major league franchise if they expect to keep the interest of fans and sponsors. If this trade results in another lopsided benefit to the A's, O'Dowd's next move should be to petition Beane and the team he's helped so much over the last decade to make his Athletics employment official.

According to Sports Illustrated's John Heyman, Matt Holliday has been traded to Oakland in exchange for... somebody. We'll update as the story unfolds, the Rockies were interested previously in Justin Duchscherer as well as others.

UPDATE [Rox Girl]: ESPN is reporting pitcher Greg Smith was "one of the players under discussion". Update to the update: pitcher Brett Anderson may be involved.

UPDATE #2 [Russ]: Ken Rosenthal of FoxSports reports:

Over the weekend, the teams discussed A's outfielder Carlos Gonzalez, left-hander Greg Smith and reliever Huston Street, according to one source, but it is not known if any or all of those players will be included in the package for Holliday.

UPDATE #3 [Russ]: Yahoo reports the Rockies will receive might receive Huston Street, Carlos Gonzalez, and Greg Smith.

UPDATE #4 [Russ]: Reported in the Denver Post, Holliday "thinks the deal is done."

UPDATE #5 [Russ]: Per the San Francisco Chronicle, Greg Smith is flying to Denver within the next day or two.

UPDATE #6 [Russ]: CBS Sportsline: Street could be dealt to another team.

I've just been trying to figure out where O'Dowd wants to be headed with the Matt Holliday to St. Louis trade. I'm trying not to look at the individual trees and see more of the complete picture. Your 2009 Rockies lineup after a Holliday to the Cardinals trade as it's currently rumored:

1. Ryan Spilborghs or Skip Schumaker CF
   
2. Troy Tulowitzki SS
3. Ian Stewart 3B
   
4. Ryan Ludwick LF
5. Brad Hawpe RF
   
6. Chris Iannetta C
   
7. Todd Helton 1B
   
8. Jeff Baker or Clint Barmes 2B
   

When Yorvit subs for Iannetta, you drop him to the eighth slot. Helton and Stewart could be interchangeable depending on who has the better bat next season, and the same could be said for the middle infielders. This does not make the Rockies any better of a team in 2009 than if they kept Matt Holliday and just traded away Atkins and Taveras but it doesn't make them worse and it makes them a little less reliant on a single individual to carry the team. This is a high OBP, decent powered lineup, but defensively deficient. Let's skip ahead to 2010:

1. Dexter Fowler CF
2. Tulowitzki SS
3. Stewart 3B
4. Iannetta C
5. Hawpe RF
6. Ludwick or Spilborghs LF
7. Helton 1B
8. ??? 2B

The Rockies hopefully will be in position to trade the lesser of Spilly, Hawpe or Ludwick a year from now because of Fowler. The defensive hit we take in 2009 has a reversal. I dropped the left fielders in the lineup because they aren't getting any younger, but if they're better hitters than Iannetta at that point, the status quo works fine. Schumaker would be kept as the reserve for his better defensive versatility. Again, trading Holliday doesn't necessarily make this lineup any better than not trading him, but because they'll be able to split the risk of regression between two players rather than just one and the potential of a secondary trade return, there's a better chance that the team is better. Second base remains somewhat of a mystery. It could be Baker/Barmes again, it could be EY2, it could be Chris Nelson, or various other scenarios, don't get scared by the question marks; just because there's no clear succession in place doesn't mean we're in bad shape at that position.

So my main point is that a trade with St. Louis isn't going to be made to add value to the team, it's going to be made to try and eliminate risk and to cut payroll. The problem is that Ludwick is an inherently risky venture, so much so that this is why the Cardinals would be willing to trade him in the first place. The irony for the Rockies is that they are adding risk to the system in a trade that looks like it's designed to do the opposite.

The wildcard in this would be the cost savings, the other key part of the design of this trade. Does the team use the windfall for an upgrade elsewhere or do the Monforts pocket it? For the sake of argument let's say we turn the $10 million around and sign some free agent pitcher like Juan Cruz. It's just a name I'm tossing out there, pick your own sub $10 million FA if you don't like it. In that event the trade breaks down to the Rockies giving up Holliday and three draft picks, two 2010 picks (one supplemental, one either a first or second round pick) and a 2009 second round pick for Ludwick, Schumaker, Boggs and Cruz. In my scenario, while the principal parts to the Holliday trade are a wash or less, a secondary part like Cruz does help the team by replacing the kind of high leverage reliever we lose with Fuentes. Keeping Holliday would mean that the team would have to hope to add that reliever with an Atkins or Taveras trade, tying O'Dowd's hands further.

Alright, now let's layer those proposed moves in and see where O'Dowd's going with this. The rumors this week were Atkins for an outfielder and a starter. Why would we need another outfielder if we're already trading for one with Holliday? Well if it's as risky a bet as Ludwick, it's clear that Cuddyer or a similar outfielder would be an insurance policy. A deal of Taveras looks to be adding a little more stability to the bullpen. The 2009 team at that point would be deep and cheap. Not spectacular, but not out of the running in the NL West. 2010 would depend on how Fowler, Stewart and our young pitchers progress.

This trade is not a doomsday scenario, it's not a fire sale. It's just not a clear gain without additional movement, that's the only way it will really work, but there's reason to think the Rockies will be in a decent position to make those moves. While this Holliday trade isn't bringing back a hitter as good as he is, it is bringing back two that are better than Atkins and Taveras, so the overall talent level of the team could still be going up. In the end if I have to, I'll live with this trade, but I just think there must be something better out there.

Here's a link to Woody Paige for some knee-jerkiness and Monfort/O'Dowd criticism.

Ken Rosenthal does a hatchet job on Rockies fans in an article titled "Value of Holliday, Atkins Questioned" which pretty much sums up where he's coming from in devaluing our players. Note that he hasn't written a similar article questioning the value of Jake Peavy coming from the most extreme pitching park in the league. He also fails to mention that Holliday's career OPS at Busch III (1.350) is better than his splits at Coors. With Atkins? Alright, so maybe he has a point there, but I don't think there are any MLB execs unaware of how park factors play at this point and even Rosenthal realizes that after Casey Blake, it's not like there are a lot of better options available at third right now even with the park factored in.

Anyway, Rosenthal reiterates the Holliday to St. Louis rumor with a little more detail on their rumored contribution than what we've been speculating about, his version has the deal being Holliday for Ludwick, Skip Schumaker and Mitchell Boggs. So we'd trade Holliday for a modest average 30 year old slugging corner outfielder, his defensive back-up and a pitcher that gets thrown into the Reynolds/Hirsh "prove what you've got and get a spot" category. If this is the case, I still would rather do a deal with Philadelphia as the rumored principals seem to be a higher quality.

A Cleveland report yesterday said that the Rockies were after an "outfielder and a starter" for Atkins, but didn't mention any names. Similarly to the Twins, the Indians have several of each category that would be appealing.

Tracy Ringolsby reports on Venezuelan signee Alving Mejias a 16 year old RHP with advanced pitchability who reportedly got a $250,000 bonus.