Barten on some transactions

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 29, 2006 3:07 PM CST in News

J.M. Barten offers his thoughts on The Trade, along with Chicago's Freddy Garcia deal and the Barry Zito signing...

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I've found myself

liking Danks better too, although there might be more than meets the scout's pen when it comes to them, and I definitely don't feel so black and white about it as John. He has a pretty good track record though (other than with Hanley Ramirez, heh).

by Brett Perryman on Dec 29, 2006 3:11 PM CST reply actions

Other Than Hanley?

I was off on Hanley Ramirez, but he's not the guy I think of when the subject of my biggest mistakes comes up. That would go to (former Ranger) Alfonso Soriano, who I absolutely HATED as a prospect when he was coming up through the Yankee system. My keeper league team really suffered for my skepticism there.

Beyond that, I was way too optimistic about Michael Bourn. After his 2004 season in Lakewood.

by JM Barten on Dec 31, 2006 3:25 AM CST up reply actions

I think that

the guys who were top prospects that I probably most underrated would be Larry Walker, Furcal, Rolen and Damon. I bought into the Pusipher/Isringhausen/Wilson trio, and I bought too much into Jason Stokes, Edwin Jackson, and Bruce Chen. And I overrated Dan Peltier (wasn't very old at that point) and Matt Belisle. I'm sure there are others.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 31, 2006 3:59 AM CST up reply actions

so its official then?

Edwin Jackson, Greg Miller, and Yhency Brazoban won't be top flight major league starting pitchers? :(

I'd have given up Sharky's left...foot for any of them.

by jtts on Dec 31, 2006 4:29 AM CST up reply actions

Miller and Jackson

At the old ESPN boards, I remember Rangers fans saying that we should trade Teixeira for a Miller/Jackson package...

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2006 12:12 PM CST up reply actions

Good for both teams

I still think the trade has a decent chance of being good for both teams. If McCarthy turns out to be a solid #3 for the next 5 years, well that's what we probably would have gotten from Zito, and we saved over $100M.

by t ball on Dec 29, 2006 3:36 PM CST reply actions

#3?

From what I have read (mostly over at Baseball Think Factory), McCarthy has the potential to be a much better pitcher than a #3.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 29, 2006 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

I'm being middle of the road/safe

I also think he will eventually be better than that, and I think he'll be better than Zito by about 2008 or 2009. There are those, however, including the folks at Beyond the Box Score, who think he'll just be a solid innings eater type, and not a top of the rotation pitcher.

I was making the point, that even if he 'only' turns out to be a solid #3 type guy, it's still a good trade, and he's still a much better value than Zito over the next 5 years.

by t ball on Dec 29, 2006 4:40 PM CST up reply actions

Losing some optimism.....

It is kind of deflating to hear McCarthy described as a "middle of the rotation, innings eater". I probably didn't pay close enough attention, but I never heard him described as that before the trade. My impression was the McCarthy had a lot of potential.

by bflood36 on Dec 29, 2006 4:51 PM CST reply actions

McCarthy

I'm not sure where all this "mid-rotation pitcher" talk is coming from either. Most every source I've seen (Sickels, BP, BB America) has generally had McCarthy ranked higher than Danks.

by RCCook on Dec 29, 2006 5:08 PM CST up reply actions

Ditto

Everything I have read about the guy he is top of the rotation guy. It's the anti-Rangers media! lol

by boomer1 on Dec 29, 2006 5:10 PM CST up reply actions

I am suprised

I read alot of stuff now about people's opinion on Danks and I hear all this stuff about him having the potential to be an ace. What? I've been following this kid's career since he was talked about as a potential first rounder and now he gets traded and is suddenly the sox's ace in waiting?

by shallrelicme on Dec 29, 2006 5:27 PM CST up reply actions

I call this phenomenon

the "it's the Rangers so it must be bad" media ailment. Or, maybe it's the "Kenny Williams is a media favorite and won a WS" bias.

It is amazing that before the trade Danks was hardly talked about outside Rangers (or, apparently, Chicago) circles, and now he's the next White Sox savior? And McCarthy, who was as touted as almost any pitcher in recent years is suddenly doing well if he is a passable 3rd starter?

Only the Chicago media seems to realize they've lost a guy who might be real special.

by t ball on Dec 29, 2006 10:48 PM CST up reply actions

Two years older!

How did that comment about McCarthy slip by our omnipotent internet overlord? (albeit I agree with AJM's annoyance with that).

Texas Rangers: baby step to 2007. Baby step to 2007.

by WyoRanger on Dec 29, 2006 4:56 PM CST reply actions

IMO Mccarthey

could be a #2 starter at best

by myoungfan11 on Dec 30, 2006 2:37 PM CST reply actions

It seems like

Jim Callis had about the same opinion of Danks/McCarthy, though he was a bit more skillful in how he said it than I was.

I don't see Danks having "ace" potential, but I don't see McCarthy having that either. All things considered, I like Danks clearly more, but it's not as overwealming as it may sound at first. The only real reasons I like Danks are that I think his stuff and/or command may improve a bit more from here because of the age difference and because of his left handedness. To put it in ratings terms, if I were back at TYBITF, I'd give McCarthy a rating of something like 4 stars and Danks 4 1/2.

I understand WHY the Rangers made the deal and it makes sense. They need present value AND future value. This is a lot better than handing a massive contract to some mediocre veteran who will only be that and nothing more.

by JM Barten on Dec 31, 2006 3:33 AM CST reply actions