Another crappy game

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 10:21 AM CDT in News

Yesterday's game really sucked.

Millwood was very good after the first, but after the first inning blowup, it didn't really matter.

The offense isn't doing anything. The team is getting booed. If they don't win today, the team is going to be 1-6 as it starts a 12 game road trip.

And the icing on the cake for me, today...Buck Showalter is quoted in the paper as saying that Gerald Laird is going to play once a week. So much for the notion that he was going to get significant time this year, that he'd get at least 50 or so starts while splitting time with Barajas.

And if anyone is interested, Rick Bauer will apparently be getting the start on Tuesday.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

On the bright side

It's actually a 9 game road trip. :)

I am sure the offense will kick into high gear in the lauching pads in Oakland and Seattle....

by LoneStarBallUser on Apr 9, 2006 10:24 AM CDT reply actions

Laird

In all fairness to Buck, he can't afford to take Barajas and his .182 average out of the lineup.

by LoneStarBallUser on Apr 9, 2006 10:25 AM CDT reply actions

Defense

Watching the game last night, I was most struck by the general ineptitude of the defense. Everybody was garbage.

And why in the hell has Laird not gotten any pt yet? Buck, I'd like to punch you right in the mullet...

"I could be wrong-but I'm not." Dan Jenkins

by Brian Thomas on Apr 9, 2006 10:38 AM CDT reply actions

yeah

the games ive seen this season so far seem to have been lost due to very poor defense, and lack of hitting. the pitching hasnt been bad, with the exception of dickey

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Apr 9, 2006 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions

Laird

His not playing is as much on Daniels as Buck.

If you give a second-year arbitration player $3.2 million, you have to be expecting him to catch every day.

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 12:14 PM CDT reply actions

disagree

I think some of the blame goes to Daniels, but this is more the the manager's department.

I was on board with taking a slow approach with Laird, but it's starting to get ridiculous. It's time for him to start playing. Everybody should be able to see that.

by Dustin on Apr 9, 2006 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Well...

There's a difference between him getting 100-110 starts, and him getting 130-140 starts.

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Laird

That's bad news about Barajas. I still think he walks at the end of the year, though. Daniels isn't going to re-sign him. Otherwise, Laird would have been sent to SD rather than CY.

"never doubt Michael Young.... never" -- T.R. Sullivan

by trza on Apr 9, 2006 1:00 PM CDT reply actions

yep

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Sure

Because that San Diego trade was so well thought out, right....

Besides, I'd rather have Young than Laird in any event.

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Huh?

I don't understand the "so well thought out" part...

And I don't think either of us was defending the Padres trade...

The point is, the fact that Laird wasn't put into the deal -- despite the fact that the Padres apparently had targeted him from the get-go, and spent a couple of months trying to get the Rangers to include him -- suggests that he's likely to be the starter next year, given the totality of the circumstances.

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

yes.

I wasn't commenting on the value of CY as opposed to Laird. Given the way things have shaken out, and the fact that Laird isnt' going to be playing much this year, I'd probably rather have Young than Laird at this point as well. All I'm saying is that I think Laird will be our starting opening day catcher next year.

"never doubt Michael Young.... never" -- T.R. Sullivan

by trza on Apr 9, 2006 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions

San Diego trade

That trade was so mind-numbingly stupid that I'm not going to give them any credit for "holding out" to "only" give up Young, instead of Laird.

Besides, if you are going to chose to give up what would have been a middle of the rotation starting pitcher for this season, instead of a catcher, wouldn't you think that catcher would be expected to start THIS season?

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions

That makes no sense

So the trade was so bad, that we're just going to ignore whatever evidence it might suggest about what they are doing with Laird?

They just refused to include Laird because they are mindless buffoons, and it isn't indicative of any sort of strategy?

That's ridiculous. You aren't being real rational about this right now.

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions

And this makes sense?

Instead of including a backup catcher (a position of some organizational depth) in the deal, you include a starting pitcher, the area of the club you are supposedly most focused on improving?

How does that make any sense?

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions

My point is...

Daniels spent two months refusing to deal Laird to the Padres.

Daniels supposedly got a lot of inquiries about Laird, and wouldn't deal him this offseason.

He also refused to give Barajas a multi-year deal, and the press has said on numerous occasions that Laird looks like he'll be the starter next season.

Besides, from what I understand, the Rangers could have gotten Eaton for Laird and Gonzalez. The Rangers didn't want to deal Laird, and they wanted Otsuka. To get Otsuka included in the deal, the Padres wanted Young, who had more value than Laird.

I'm not arguing the wisdom of the trade, or whether Laird is more valuable than Young.

I'm saying that, when you look at all of that together, that suggests that the Rangers plan on Laird being their starting catcher next year.

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions

That thought process

Reminds me of what we all thought last year as well.

If Daniels really thinks that highly of Laird, then (a) he wouldn't have given Barajas $3.2 million for this season, and (b) he would tell Buck (if Buck really works for him) to play the guy.

The fact that Laird remains buried on the bench and Buck continues to say things like "Rod's one of the best catchers in our league", is much stronger evidence, in my mind, that Barajas is going to be the catcher for a while, and that Laird ultimately will get traded away.

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions

If that's the case...

...then why wasn't Barajas signed to an extension, and Laird traded this offseason?

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions

Well....

With regard to the extention, there wasn't any need to sign him to one. He's tied up for 2007 in any event. They didn't run to sign Eaton, Padilla, Wilkerson, or Mench to extensions either. I don't think you can read anything into not signing a guy who is two years away from free agency to an extention.

With regard to why he wasn't traded this offseason, I don't know. I suspect some of it is the Daniels' view of the world vs. Buck's view of the world issue, but Buck tends to win those in the long run (Barajas starting this year, Dominguez trade), and I think he'll win on this one. If Daniels isn't going to stand up to him on the Dominguez/Dickey question, what evidence of there to think he'll stand up to him (or, more correctly, has the authority to stand up to him) over this issue, particularly when it involves one of "Fuson's guys",

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Barajas

He's a free agent after this season.

by Adam J. Morris on Apr 9, 2006 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Are you sure?

I thought he bounced back and forth between Arizona and AAA in 2001-2003, and I'm surprised he'll have six full years of service time after this season.

That might change my opinion a little, but I still think he's back next year, if he hits anything like what he did even in 2004.

by BurntOrange on Apr 9, 2006 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions