JD on with Norm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
radio
and streaming audio/video is a BIG no no... sigh
Sorry chief, was trying to listen
Basics:
-McCarthy on list of targeted young players, couldn't pass opportunity to get him, is for now and future. Said his minor league performance is hard to find, but backs it up with good makeup and stuff.
-Likes the stability and upside of rotation - said Millwood for 4 yrs, Padilla for 4 (including option), McCarthy 5, tejeda 5. And "waves" of pitches behind them. Feels pitching depth allowed them to make this deal, but expects Danks & Masset to pitch well.
-Said the core of the team is positioned to win. They could have gone Marlins style or tried to win and they are putting a competitive team out there. Only McCarthy deal moved any young players.
-Gagne wouldn't agree to give the team an option for 2008. Said they tried to do that with Dotel last year too
-No specifics on Zito or Mulder contract offers. Didn't want to give out info that could help competitors. Said they had made an aggressive offer to Zito, but wouldn't say if it was 6 years. Market has changed, but the offer was as high as they can go within "means." Still negotiating with both.
-Mulder on honeymoon in Tahiti. Medical staff expects he'll be pitching mid-season this year, but full strength later in year and 2008.
-Does not believe Zito needs to stay on the west coast. Also thinks the Rangers have a chance to win, and thinks free agents see that too (in response to Norm saying Mets are attractive because they can win - JD pointed out a year ago they had a near-.500 record too). Said hard to tell if rumors of other teams are accurate.
-In addition to a starter, looking for upgrades at backup CA (talked to Barajas, but got better opportunity in Philly - said they may bring in one or two younger guys to compete with Ojeda), utility (Vasquez or Arias, but they want Arias to get 500 ABs in triple A), and RH bat (but may go with Botts or Diaz to start).
That's all I can remember.
Also
Botts
One veteran bat using some of the money tabbed for Zito would be a good idea.
And phase Botts in, say 200 or 300 AB.
by hightowersmith on Dec 26, 2006 10:29 AM CST up reply actions
Here's the thing
You add that player to a mix that already has Cat, Cruz, and Wilk for the corner OF/DH slots.
How many ABs does that really leave Botts, as the 5th guy for 3 slots?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 26, 2006 10:32 AM CST up reply actions
Botts
by The other Thomas on Dec 26, 2006 10:52 AM CST up reply actions
Are you ready to acknowledge?
by BurntOrange on Dec 26, 2006 11:52 AM CST up reply actions
better trade him...
My point is...
We can only hope Daniels makes a more informed decision regarding Botts than Hart made...
And my point is....
Even moreso than with Hafner, it appears they are simply determined not to let him play here. There were better players in front of Hafner than there were in front of Botts when this offseason began.
by BurntOrange on Dec 26, 2006 7:52 PM CST up reply actions
Thanks for recap
I don't understand the reluctance to use Botts.
botts
I wish
by myoungfan11 on Dec 26, 2006 1:35 PM CST up reply actions
Option
by BurntOrange on Dec 26, 2006 1:46 PM CST up reply actions
If
by myoungfan11 on Dec 26, 2006 3:18 PM CST up reply actions
Yep
trade
by rkh on Dec 26, 2006 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
JD
Sharky, some of us value you because
As for JD I have been very hard on the little man. Have not like many of his moves in his first year and have exercised my contitutional right to free speach about the moves. Like you I see him making better moves this offseason. I am not convinced he has done enough to make this team a winner yet, but he has not made any more bone headed dumb trades. Yes that is an improvement.
Yes but almost every
I agree
However
It was a trade that made no sense when it was made, and it only got worse.
by BurntOrange on Dec 26, 2006 1:44 PM CST up reply actions
Well then let's just fire him now
What your point?
And who is calling for Daniels to be fired?
by BurntOrange on Dec 26, 2006 1:56 PM CST up reply actions
I liked the SD
Hindsight
by LoneStarBallUser on Dec 26, 2006 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
Hey I have admitted it was a bad trade
Soriano/San Diego trades
As for the Soriano trade, I liked it at the time and I still do. There was no reason whatsoever to see Soriano's 2006 season happening. And if Wilkerson comes back healthy and plays to his normal ability then the Rangers will have a very solid outfield in 2007.
by LoneStarBallUser on Dec 26, 2006 3:22 PM CST up reply actions
LOL
I have a cold and don't have it in me to fight with you today Chris have a Happy New Year.
Chris I have season tickets to the Rangers so if you ever want to go get with me. They are front row on the 1st base side right behind Greg the ball boy.
I don't go to games anymore
by LoneStarBallUser on Dec 26, 2006 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
Are you sure?
You do go on to say that it was a very bad trade, but that looks like talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The REASON we keep harping on the Young trade is that you have people still saying, "Hey, we should wait before we really judge a trade." even though all the scenarios that we (the detractors of the trade) laid out as the most likely came to pass.
Eaton was injured and fairly ineffective.
Young did well in his new haunt.
A Gonzalez produced like most expected him to do.
Otsuka was a great reliever.
I still don't even see why you're trying to say we should give it another year to judge. San Diego has likely already won the trade just ON THE FIRST YEAR. We have only what Otsuka will do in the following 3 years to make up for the huge difference in value that Young and Gonzalez provided over Eaton and Otsuka.
Basically, the likely scenario we laid out for why this trade was horrible came to pass, and now you're saying that 1) it's hindsight, and 2) we should give it another year?
I don't get it. Is it because you don't want to admit that maybe we got royally screwed on the deal?
It WOULD be hindsight and worthless to espouse if we hadn't outlined the problems of the deal when it first occurred (e.g., if any of us starting taking JD to task over Soriano, then, you could probably accuse us of using hindsight and trying to stir up stuff), but we actually laid down the groundwork and arguments for WHY this deal was so horrible right when the deal was announced.
And it came down almost exactly as some of us predicted. Does this mean that JD was incorrect to try to trade Chris Young? No, not at all. It's just that the return we got for him and our best position prospect was so low, that it was nigh impossible to see a "best-reward" scenario which would make the deal in our favor.
At least with the McCarthy deal, I can see a solid potential for the Rangers making out well (which is why I don't think it's a bad deal).
Most of us are not bitching for the sake of bitching. Most of us, though, also, don't trust JD implicitly, either, just because he's not Hart.
Req
Yay!
And...
Hindsight
An example of hindsight would be for me to rip on Daniels for the Soriano-Wilkerson trade, because I really liked it when it was made.
by BurntOrange on Dec 26, 2006 7:58 PM CST up reply actions
And I was refering
irrelevant
by rkh on Dec 26, 2006 7:30 PM CST up reply actions
What part of sarcasam
better than hart
by rkh on Dec 26, 2006 8:02 PM CST up reply actions
I can agree with that.
There are worse things....
As the Bush Administration and USA is figuring out, unfortunately.
Sometimes, it's important to judge a good GM on the trades he DOESN'T make....
Req
So you are saying
No.
Just because for the most part, Hart did nothing (and when he DID do something it was bad) and was a bad GM, doesn't mean that because JD did something different implies he is a good GM.
In the right context, doing nothing is good (e.g., if you can't get good enough value for your parts, you DON'T make the trade, a la Otsuka or Chris Young). In the right context, doing something is good (a la Padilla, Dominguez, Diaz/Young).
But there's usually no universals here, where we can say "4-feet good, 2-feet bad."
Req
Remember
Trades don't work out sometimes.
Exactly my point...
victor zambrano
I'm making the point
just saying
Not to mention
and it was (unfortunately) magnified...
Dunno if people heard...
by hightowersmith on Dec 26, 2006 12:07 PM CST reply actions
Good it's time this thing
It would be nice though if the Rangers did get him to go along with Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy and Tejeda. I also wouldn't mind if they got Mulder.
You do realize
Tired of the media dragging this out?
This is nothing like the A-Rod hype before, and during, those winter meetings.
The only reason we might feel a bit lambasted by all of the media hype is because we visit LSB and see the daily link dumps. It's not like this is really getting dragged out by Boras or Daniels on an even semi-regular basis.
I'm not tired of it, and won't be, unless Boras starts scheduling weekly press conferences to discuss it.
And I'm tired of
Zito saga
With Mccarthy on board, we may not need him like we did before, so overpaying doesn't sound as good. I can't remember the time the Rangers went into an ST with 3 guys like Mccarthy, Millwood and Padilla at the front of their rotation.
by The other Thomas on Dec 26, 2006 2:06 PM CST up reply actions
Mulder
by myoungfan11 on Dec 26, 2006 2:08 PM CST up reply actions
I think you're...
I already know
by myoungfan11 on Dec 26, 2006 3:02 PM CST up reply actions
I think what is meant is:
This is definitely the best way to deal with Boras. It's not like Hicks hasn't left this on the table for a decent period. If it is open ended then other teams enter and leave the process at their pleasure.
Another thing is the way it hamstrings the Rangers. "If we don't sign Zito then we can ..." You fill in the blank. You've seen the posts. Well, if we wait much longer without resolution either way, it begins to damage the team in it's ability to evaluate opportunities as they arise and they will.

by 

















