Vote on Danks Trade

by Austin Ranger on Dec 25, 2006 9:25 AM CST

I have been traveling and just got online to find out about the Danks trade. I was shocked because the Rangers have been so protective of Danks.

I have mixed reactions about the Danks trade. I hate to see Danks go, but many seem to think that McCarthy is a right-handed Danks...only a little ahead in his development.

I'm wondering what everything thinks. Is this a good trade, not sure so trade, or a bad trade?

Poll

Good Trade, Not So Sure, or Bad Trade?

Good Trade

74 votes

Not So Sure Trade

34 votes

Bad Trade

9 votes

117 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Haven't we already done this ?

by tklawless on Dec 25, 2006 9:29 AM CST reply actions

To be fair

The title of that poll was "Do you like the McCarthy trade?"

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

by LoneStarBallUser on Dec 25, 2006 10:15 AM CST up reply actions

Penalty Box!

"I'm a Republican" - Jackie Robinson

by kwellborn on Dec 25, 2006 10:27 AM CST reply actions

as the other poll yet, but I think it's interesting that some seem to be shifting from not sure to liking it. I'm still in the not sure category. It's just a very risky, interesting trade for each side.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 25, 2006 10:47 AM CST reply actions

more risk for the chisox though, no?

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2007, in a winnable AL West. Never thought I'd say that!

by RangerMoto on Dec 25, 2006 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

I think it's

different risk, but it's still risky for Texas. Both teams are trading highly regarded young pitchers. Chances are one of Danks and McCarthy is a lot better than the other. If we picked the wrong one, it will hurt. The other risk that we took on was in giving up the extra guys. Masset is regarded by some "Rangers observers" as just a step behind the other two. And Rasner is a real prospect with a good arm. There is every chance that they wind up regretting including him.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 25, 2006 1:14 PM CST up reply actions

What do you mean by different risk?

by rooster on Dec 25, 2006 5:19 PM CST up reply actions

Different risk

They are risking a more established guy, someone who could have started in the rotation for someone who still has a little bit to go, and we're risking two for one, plus the third pitcher we're giving is a nice, projectable arm. Also, if all things are equal, you'd want the lefty here I think.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 25, 2006 7:16 PM CST up reply actions

Risks that both teams were well positioned

to absorb. The Sox needed to improve the talent pool on the farm and had a veteran rotation for another year, at least. The Rangers needed a #3 and had a deeper cache of pitching prospects (they might still have the deeper pitching prospect pool of the two orgs).

Well calculated trade on both ends. It wouldn't be a surprise to see both teams get what they need out of this trade.

I wish I could come up with a way to reasonably quantify odds on this deal working out for both. The odds of Danks making it as a #3 or better sometime over the next two seasons have to be not as good as the odds of McCarthy doing the same. Beyond that, though, it's hard to really say which of the two might fare better. I like Danks left-handedness and McCarthy's control equally well.

I thought the Tigers might do this for the same reasons with Bonderman.

by rooster on Dec 26, 2006 1:11 AM CST up reply actions

Lefty vs Mccarthy

Mccarthy profiles weird for a righty. He gives up most of his power to right-handed hitters and does a very good job of suppressing left-handed power.

I've heard this might be b/c his changeup is better than his slider, but whatever the case, he's kind of an against-the-book RH pitcher

by The other Thomas on Dec 26, 2006 1:55 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah

I was noticing that. His splits are funny.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 26, 2006 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

funny, yes

but handy for us, even better
I noticed it b/c his splits reminded me of Zito's. He gets more than his fair share of popups against lefthanders, and if I remember right his BABIP was pretty low against them as well.

When I saw it, it made more sense why Daniels coveted him so much (enough to give up Danks and Masset). I bet this is exactly the more detailed profile of a pitcher our front office is seeking--Guys who make lefties popup or strike out. That's really the power disparity that exists in Arlington. Outside of that, I bet it'd be a pitcher's park, with as big as left field is.

by The other Thomas on Dec 26, 2006 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

Any idea

what the splits are for TBIA for BABIP and homers? I can only find total park factors, no lefty-righty splits. Below are TBIA park factor rankings from 2001-2006:

    Runs    HR    H    2B    3B    BB
2006    5    12    11    4    22    12
2005    6    4    10    14    1    20
2004    2    9    4    8    3    16
2003    5    7    3    5    6    22
2002    5    4    6    11    9    10
2001    15    16    10    19    4    18
AVG    6.33    8.67    7.33    10.17    7.50    16.33

That 16.33 is the BB avg. can't get that to line up properly...Anyway, this shows that TBIA is far from the most homer prone park in baseball.

by t ball on Dec 26, 2006 3:43 PM CST up reply actions

I used the handy BIP applet AJM posted.

It's encouraging that in 2006 lefties hit alot of ground balls against McCarthy (55% of BIP) and only 3 FB to right (out of 78).

But, I would temper that a bit with the fact that he did have Hafner, Coco, Patterson, and Melky go deep to right on him. Maybe he was throwing that 4-seamer instead of his change. Who knows.

Being a power pitcher, most of his FB from righties went to C and RC, not so good. But, at least he handles lefties, the primary damage doers at BPiA.

The Rangers are becoming selective about the type of pitcher they sign, it appears. This, I believe, is an intelligent trade. McCarthy seems to have characteristics that would make him a better bet than most RHPs to have success at BPiA.

by rooster on Dec 26, 2006 4:06 PM CST up reply actions

Speaking of the importance of containing lefties.

Check out Padilla's line on lefties last year:

387 AB, .305 BAA, .401 OBP, .488 slugging

And, he improved against lefties last year compared to 2005, 2004. Looks like one of his tactics is to plunk lefties. He hit 12 lefties compared to 4 righties in the same number of AB.

by rooster on Dec 26, 2006 4:15 PM CST up reply actions

Plunking

whatever works!

by t ball on Dec 26, 2006 4:24 PM CST up reply actions

Not fair to disregard Paisano

If you're counting Rasner as part of the deal. Paisano represents risk to the White Sox and potential reward to the Rangers.

He's relatively insignifcant in the scheme of the deal, but no more so than Rasner.

by AZranger on Dec 25, 2006 10:10 PM CST up reply actions

Don't mean to

There is obviously something that we like about him for him to be included. The reason I lump Rasner in is that he is pitching just like the other three, and he's actually got pretty nice upside. He's one of the pitching prospects in the org that I do like.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 26, 2006 12:02 AM CST up reply actions

Let's hope

his inclusion ends up beings similar to that of Edwin Encarnacion... except in our favor this time, obviously.

Jason Botts: 500+ AB's in '07, or bust!!!

by thedirkatron on Dec 26, 2006 12:44 AM CST up reply actions

Rasner

Seems like 6'3" right handed pitchers with a plus fastball, but poor secondary pitches and poor command are the kind of thing the organization should be able to find every year in the mid rounds of the draft.

If Paisano is an upside outfielder, that has a lot more value.

by AZranger on Dec 26, 2006 8:09 AM CST up reply actions

Rasner

I think that he's more like 6-4 or 6-5, taller than his cousin. And I thought that I heard that his curve was making progress, although I don't remember where.

He obviously has command/control issues and hasn't put his package together, but He put together a really nice first half (78 IP, 79 H, 23 BB, 73 K, 7 HR, 4.14 ERA in 14 starts) before fading over the long professional season. And he made a pretty big step pitching fairly well in the MWL after being terrible in the AZL the previous summer. That makes me think he may have some aptitude. But mainly he's a very projectable type, and while it seems like you could find those, they try and often fail, for instance guys in his same draft class like Shane Funk, Matt Nevarez and Michael Kirkman, all guys who seemed to have some upside and promise at one point, and all guys who BA liked going into the draft, but who have been miserable so far and haven't even gotten to the point that Rasner has.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 26, 2006 11:07 AM CST up reply actions