Please, no more trades

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 7:29 AM CDT Comment 44 comments

First we learn that Brad Wilkerson has a bad shoulder, then Carlos Lee is too rotund to play the outfield and now we know Akinori Otsuka has migraine headaches and can't pitch the rest of the season, a condition which he has had since he was 20.

Never mind the Rangers got screwed player wise in letting go Chris Young, Soriano, Adrian Gonzalez, but shouln't the Rangers and John Daniels have been aware of these obvious medical and playing problems BEFORE the trades were made?

Otsuka's condition doesn't matter this season, but if the Rangers were in a middle of the playoffs, losing a closer to headaches might be a trifle more significant. Trading a player of the quality of Soriano for a player whose shoulder barely allows him to swing a bad is inexcusable. Lee's ponderous play in left field should have made it apparent when the Rangers scouted him.

If I am Tom Hicks, I am not sure I want Daniels trading my players or spending my money on free agents. If there were a minor league for general managers, one might conclude that Daniels needs to return there for more seasoning. He has displayed some talent but is overly aggressive at the plate and gets suckered by off speed pitches out of the strike zone.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good Man

Sit.

9 times out of 10 I'd rather let players simply walk then trade them. Because I know the Rangers are just looking to get rid of guys.

by Sharky on Sep 27, 2006 7:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Rangers medical staff

sucks at clearing trades. We seem to get gimps back quite a bit.

Baseball wives are leeches. ... They're just hookers on retainer. -- Rangerchick

by DJCahill on Sep 27, 2006 7:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Medical Reports

People knew about Wilkerson's shoulder, and if the Rangers had insisited that Wilkerson clear a medical exam, I would expect the Nationals to demand that Soriano agree to a position change. The trade was made with some unkown factors, and it did not pan out in the Rangers favor. Such is life. Look at the Nationals when they traded Vinnie Castilla for Brian Lawrence. Were there questions about Lawrence's arm? Sure, but they did not press the issue because they did not want Castilla to take a physical. Sometimes GM's make a trade without asking all the questions because that keep the trade from ever happening. Yeah, it's risky but that's what happens in trades, you never know for sure.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Sep 27, 2006 8:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wilkerson

If Daniels knew about the condition of his shoulder, why would the Rangers make a trade? I don't believe there was a minimum number of trades he was expected to complete in his first 60 days. Soriano, with all of his drawbacks, was too good of a player to give away.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

Soriano wasn't being given away.

He was being traded for a player that the Rangers thought would be a lot more productive than he was this year.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 27, 2006 9:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that was his point Adam

by Chris Martin on Sep 27, 2006 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

trading Soriano cleared the way for the signing of Millwood. Seems like people are forgetting that.

BRAWLFEST 2006! F the Angels!

by ortonius on Sep 27, 2006 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano v. Lee

Lee is making $8.5 million this season; Wilkerson is making almost $4 million. Soriano is making $10 million. If Soriano isn't traded, neither Lee or Wilkerson would be here.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

you are saying that the Rangers actually spent more money this year by having both Lee and Wilkerson. I don't get how this is supposed to be a positive. Quality wins ball games. Soriano is the best player by far. Easily worth those 2 and he is cheaper. Big, big mistake then.

by gp on Sep 28, 2006 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shoulder Condition

What Daniels (and probably every other GM) knew is that his shoulder might not be healthy. He did not knowingly trade for an injured player. He traded for a player with some question marks, just as Soriano had some question marks. There is no possible way to predict what WILL happen with regards to a player's performance. There are, however, ways to predict what we THINK will happen (i.e. nobody knew for sure that Soriano would outproduce Wilkerson).

Some food for thought, what if Wilkerson had a an average year (though with a few more HR's due to TBIA) and Soriano sat out the entire year because he wanted to play second? I think everybody here would be inclined to hail Daniels as the "Greatest GM in the World". Would this really be the case? No, he would have been lucky; just as he is unlucky that Soriano is putting up such good numbers and Wilkerson is still injured.

Signing/trading for a player with little to no upside (Nefi Perez or better yet Enar Diaz) makes for a bad GM.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Sep 27, 2006 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Healthy shoulders

There are lots of ways for doctors to evaluate how healthy a player's shoulder is, an assessment which should have been made before the trade was completed. Far as I know, Soriano had no health issues. It's hard to believe anyone would trade a very good, healthy player for one who isn't or even potentially isn't. There was really no down side in keeping Soriano and his 46 homers with the Rangers. Despite all the posturing in spring training, he eventually moved to left field for the Nats and undoubtedly would have done so for the Rangers.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano

Has beaten both his career OPS and his 2004 and 2005 OPS marks by over 100 points. He's also drawn 30 more walks than he had during any season of his career. Two things that I don't think anyone could have predicted.

Like I've said many times before: if Soriano played as well during his two years here as he has this year, he'd still be a Ranger. Instead, he had arguably the two worst seasons of his career offensively, and played a terrible second base. Based on his history and 2004-05 performance, I don't blame the Rangers for dealing him, or for not seeing that he would hit 46 homers with a 920 OPS this year.

by RCCook on Sep 27, 2006 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trading for Wilkerson

I would have had no problem trading Soriano--for a number one or two pitcher. Wilkerson's best year was in 2004. That season he struck out 152 times in 572 at-bats or .26 percent of the time and drove in 67 runs with 32 homers. During Soriano's two seasons with the Rangers he had 91 and 104 rbis in 2004 and 2005 with 28 and 36 home runs consecutively. He struck out 121 and 125 times, about 20 percent of his time at bats. The trade Soriano for Wilkerson made no sense, especially with BW having a bad shoulder.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trading Soriano

The only problem with that is that the Rangers weren't going to get a #1 or #2 pitcher for a guy who had declined the past two years, was a defensive liability and a hacker at the plate, and only had one year left on his contract. The 2004-05 version of Soriano wasn't worth $10 million a year, and unfortunately for the Rangers, that's the player they were shopping, not this year's version.

Texas was reportedly offered Kyle Lohse (4-10, 6.04 this year) and a C prospect or two at the 2004 trade deadline for Soriano. And that's the best offer that was reported for him last year. If you know of any teams that were willing to give up a Millwood-caliber starter for Soriano last season, by all means, let me know.

by RCCook on Sep 27, 2006 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So?

Back to my original comment, why trade him if quality pitching wasn't available?

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ugghhhh

10 million dollars for 2006! It's not chinese we be speakin...

10/per for sub-800 OPS and atrocious defense...

Macho, macho man. I want to be, a macho man.

by Brian Thomas on Sep 27, 2006 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that the Rangers weren't going to get anything for Soriano. I just disagree with the reasoning why. The Rangers have a long, long history of giving away excellent talent with very little in return. Every team in the majors knew that Texas was desperate to unload Soriano. They knew that sooner or later the Rangers would do something stupid and they did. That is why Blalock hasn't been dealt yet. The vultures are just circling and waiting for the right moment. I mean, hell, this organization actually pays the Yankees to play A-Rod. I fear that until Hicks is gone this team will always be seen as an easy mark.

by gp on Sep 28, 2006 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano and Injuries

Soriano was not injured, but what I refered to above was that the Nationals would have requested that Soriano agree to a position change (probably in writing) before the trade would have been consumated if the Rangers wanted to make sure that Wilkerson was healthy.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Sep 27, 2006 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Daniels' trades

No, the Soriano and Young deals didn't work out, even with Otsuka's success as a closer. But I wasn't aware the Rangers traded for Carlos Lee for his defense. Texas needed a bat, and Lee has hit better here than he did in Milwaukee. I don't see how that can be put down as a failure in Daniels' ledger.

The deals for Padilla and Tejeda both look pretty good. Rheinecker and Koronka for Dominguez- not bad.

Daniels is a rookie GM. We allow rookie players a learning curve- why doesn't the GM get similar consideration?

I do agree that our medical staff does a terrible job of clearing trades, though.

by RCCook on Sep 27, 2006 7:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Lee

If Lee was acquired exclusively for his bat, why is he starting in left field? GMs don't get learning curves because 1) the job isn't that tough and Daniels should have known what he was doing before arriving on the job 2) trading one of your best players for a mediocre, injured one is flat-out stupid and 3) there are no minor leagues for GMs.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just the "why" part

Buck.

Soriano wanted to play 2B. He did.

Lee wants to play LF. He did.

by Ed Coffin on Sep 27, 2006 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Lee

My point was that the Rangers didn't acquire Lee to be a defensive whiz- they picked him up for his bat, and he's been successful in that regard. Manny Ramirez is a lousy left fielder as well, but the Red Sox put up with it because he hits the snot out of the ball. Soriano was a crappy second baseman, but as long as he hit 25-30 homers a year, the Yankees were willing to overlook that.

So being a GM isn't that tough? Really? So why don't teams hire any random jackass off the street to do the job, instead of people with qualifications? Daniels has experience working for two different teams, and has a year as an assistant GM. He's more qualified than anyone on this board to run the Rangers, and while he's not perfect, he's better than his predecessor.

As to your point of Soriano vs. Wilkerson: the Rangers traded a low-OBP slugger for what they thought was a high-OBP guy with moderate power. It didn't work out. Should we fire Daniels for making one bad trade, and one other one (the Young deal) that's only sort of worked out?

I guess by the same standards, Pat Gillick should be fired in Philly for gifting Padilla and Tejeda to the Rangers. Brian Sabean should have been fired for dealing away Nathan and Liriano for one year of A.J. Pierzynski. John Schuerholz should have never been hired to run the Braves, since he traded David Cone for a lousy backup catcher while running the Royals.

by RCCook on Sep 27, 2006 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Daniels

I can't fire him. But I don't have any confidence in his judgment. Some of my other favorite Daniels' gems:

Esteban German, hitting .329 for the Royals, for Fabio Castro; Castro to the Phillies for AA pitcher Daniel Haigwood in order to keep Bryan Corey on the roster. Castro has an 0.86 ERA for the Phillies. Corey was waived to Boston for nothing.

Phil Nevin to the Cubs for Jerry Hairston.

Joselo Diaz to the Royals for Matt Stairs; Stairs waived to the Tigers for nothing, not even at bats for Jason Botts.

Randall Simon, a career .283 hitter, waived to the Phillies for nothing.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously...

You are complaining about trading away Randall Simon, Joselo Diaz, and Phil Nevin?

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 27, 2006 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no plan

I don't think the acquisition of the players I named and their subsequent disposal for nothing or little reflect a plan or even a rational sequence of events. The Castro trades are well documented and the final result of waiving the player the Rangers were supposedly reserving a roster spot for was absurd. The rest were minor deals but nonetheless disturbing. Why give Stairs to the Tigers? What favors have they done for Texas lately? The Rangers couldn't even get a young pitcher for him, even though that's what they gave up? An ok power hitter, Nevin, for Hairston who never plays because he can't hit? The Rangers sign Simon from the Mexican League and simply give him to the Phillies. Why? None of it makes sense.

by doolindalton on Sep 27, 2006 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stairs and Simon

The Rangers acquired Stairs for a guy who is nothing more than organizational depth.

The got him because they needed a lefty DH bat for the stretch run.

Once they fell out of the race, they started giving his ABs to Nelson Cruz, and he wasn't going to have a chance to play.

They could have kept him on the roster, continued to pay him, and not play him, with him then walking as a free agent after the season.

Or they could put him on waivers and give him a chance to play for a playoff contender.

So why wouldn't they let him go?

I have no idea why they got Simon. He played for one of their minor league teams for a while. When they decided they didn't need him, they ended up selling him to the Phillies.

So why is that a bad thing?

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 27, 2006 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a bad thing...

because they had to give up a pitcher to get him and didn't get anybody when they let him go. It's not going to make or break the franchise, but why do another team a favor? When the Rangers are getting clobbered during the season and in the off-season, giving away players doesn't sit well.

by doolindalton on Sep 28, 2006 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defending Daniels

Why I generally go out of my way to defend Daniels on this website, I must agree with you that there are some things that make me wonder. For the Yankees, if they make a poor decision in a trade or lose a player on waivers or to the Rule V Draft, they will increase the payroll to make up for these mistakes via free agents. It is pretty obvious that Hicks does not like this approach; it is a fact of life, and Rangers fans had best get used to it. Because of this, I dislike the fact that sometimes players leave the organization with little to nothing in return. It does not mean I dislike the job Daniels has done, but I hope that he limits the number of times players leave for nothing in return.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Sep 28, 2006 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But...

It's a bad thing...

because they had to give up a pitcher to get him and didn't get anybody when they let him go.

He was a free agent at the end of the season. They weren't going to get anything for him when he left, in any case.

And the guy they gave up was someone they signed as a minor league free agent. If they want Joselo Diaz back, they'll be able to sign him again this offseason.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 29, 2006 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect?

Why does everybody expect Daniels to be perfect?

by Excel Hearts Choi on Sep 27, 2006 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why are

you putting Rheineker and Koronka for Dominguez as a positive? Both were OK for a short time until the league caught up with them and then it went downhill fast. Neither seem to have much of a future. If goofball Dominguez can get his head screwed on straight and maybe lose a few pounds he has a shot at being a good major league pitcher. At least he has the talent. It is going to take a miracle for either of the 2 Ranger guys to have any long term success. Personally, I don't think it is going to happen for any of the three. Kind of a wash.

by gp on Sep 28, 2006 1:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

both

did far more for the Rangers this year than Dominquez did for the A's, and both have a solid chance to contribute next year. Dominguez is not going to go on and win 20 games for anyone, this was a good trade made for the right reasons. His time had run out here and a change of scenery was best for everyone.

by t ball on Sep 28, 2006 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sharky

Part Two.

"If you are going to type stupid shit, you should at least spell it right." -trza

by thedirkatron on Sep 27, 2006 7:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

and

No one seems to fess up that Cruz come here makes that trade with Milwalkee seem decent. Sure he is green around the edges, but I am super impressed with him. Great arm, can hit, is fast. Another year or 2 and he could look just like Carlos Beltran.

by pablo on Sep 27, 2006 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Please no more diaries

Macho, macho man. I want to be, a macho man.

by Brian Thomas on Sep 27, 2006 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

amen

by pablo on Sep 27, 2006 8:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

"If you are going to type stupid shit, you should at least spell it right." -trza

by thedirkatron on Sep 27, 2006 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol, the season is not even over

and I'm getting tired of this kind of stuff already. I suppose I'll get back into it when the hot stove actually fires up.

by t ball on Sep 27, 2006 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The worst trade that affected this team

wasnt even by Daniels. Chan Ho for Nevin backfired - not because Chan Ho turned into anything good, but because Nevin and his descendent Hairston played way too much - one can argue that for either of them, 1 inning was way too much. We should have just released Chan Ho at the end of this year instead of deluding ourselves that Nevin could be our DH.

Every trade that Daniels has made (other than Nevin for Hairston) has had a legitimate upside - even if the other team "won." Regarding Soriano, I consider Kinsler's playing time as a direct result of Soriano being gone - had we kept him, he have played 2b with 30 errors because Buck is a wuss.

By other measures, the draft went well, and the teams long-term budget appears to be in good shape. Daniels is a good GM

by JBImaknee on Sep 27, 2006 11:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nevin

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Nevin was the perfect right-handed DH to be platooned with David Dellucci. Nevin hammers lefties, Dellucci killed righties. But they weren't used correctly and Nevin ended hurting the team.

The only reason that trade sucked is Buckles, plain and simple. He didn't have the guts to implement a platoon among such gritty PT-deserving veterans.

Buck sucks.

"If you are going to type stupid shit, you should at least spell it right." -trza

by thedirkatron on Sep 27, 2006 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nevin

749 OPS against lefties this season.

He's hitting better against righthanders.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 27, 2006 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cordero

Just fwiw, he blew his first save for the Brewers tonight. It was an ugly performance, and he also was kind of weak in his last game. But overall, he's been fantastic for them.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 28, 2006 1:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Aside from April....

Cordero was fantastic for us, too.

And if you can believe, he actually was good in April, though he was unlucky.

Actually, looking at the numbers again, I'd say that Cordero was actually better here (overall, not just ERA) than he was in Milwaukee. He just had in Texas 1) a worse defense behind him, 2) a worse HR rate (partly attributed to TBIA), and 3) worse luck than in Milwaukee.

Cordero was NOT a bad pitcher for us in 2006, though his ERA may suggest otherwise.

Req

by Requiem on Sep 28, 2006 2:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs