McCarthy trade in context

by AZranger on Jan 1, 2007 9:36 PM CST Comment 28 comments

Unless I'm missing one, there were 6 trades for starting pitchers made this off-season, 3 of which had a similar structure:

Freddy Garcia (1yr of control) for Gio Gonzalez & Gavin Floyd
Jason Jennings (1yr of control) and Miguel Ascencio for Jason Hirsch, Willy Taveras & Taylor Buchholz
Brandon McCarthy (5yrs of control) for John Danks & Nick Masset

Left out the Bannister/Burgos deal as it's not one established guy for upside prospects, the Ramirez/Soriano deal because no one other than Seattle wanted Ramirez, and the D.Davis to Arizona deal because that had multiple moving parts (ie, not just for Davis).

The Garcia and Jennings deals set the market at one premium pitching prospect (Hirsch and Gonzalez) plus one interesting power arm (Buchholz and Floyd). The Astros also included a young position player for essentially nothing (Ascencio has minimal value). Both of those deals netted an established big league starter just one year from free agency.

The Rangers acquired McCarthy for approximately the same package: one premium starter prospect (Danks) and one power arm with big upside (Masset). We can argue over the relative value of the prospects involved (I'd rank Danks over Hirsch and Gonzalez, but not by much), but to get 5 years of McCarthy vs one year of Garcia/Jennings is a no brainer. How much is the "proven veteran" status worth when evaluating the Phillies & Astros' acquisitions vs our own?

The more I think about this deal, the more I like it. Considerable risk involved, of course, but in a market where mediocre starting pitching commands upwards of $40mil, or multiple prospects for one year of performance - I like what the team was able to pull off.

Creates what could be the most stable and self-sustaining pitching the franchise has ever had (or certainly in a long time), with the first four members of the rotation followed by Rupe/Koronka/Volquez/Loe and then Hurley/Diamond/etc.

Sorry if this doesn't qualify as "new material" but thought it worth posting.

Happy New Year

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We dont know

if mccarthy will be as good as jennings or garcia.

Jon Miller says Vicente Padilla with a thick accent.

by Agreen07 on Jan 1, 2007 9:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

But still...

5 years of control for a 23 year old...

or paying the same amount for a 1 year rental...

by miles on Jan 1, 2007 9:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Danks

better than Gio or Hirsh, but I do think it's a better trade than the other two.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 1, 2007 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We also don't know

that Garcia or Jennings is going to be great or anything year to year. Jennings was so much better last year but didn't have much value prior to that, with consistent 5+ ERAs in Coors, and Garcia is'nt a consistent top quality pitcher or anything. I don't think that any of them are really sure things.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 1, 2007 9:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it is possible

that McCarthy will be MUCH better than either of them at some point over the next five years.

This is a good way to look at it.

by JBImaknee on Jan 1, 2007 10:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say it's VERY possible

(barring injury). From August 30, 2005 to October 1, 2005, in a pennant race, here's BMac's stats as a starter:

Inngs H R ER HR BB SO ERA

42 2/3 31 8 8 5 6 31 1.69

Obviously, that's a helluva line, but, ChiSox left him to waste away in the bullpen last year. I don't think he has to hit those #'s for it to be a good trade for Texas.....but nice to know he's done it, and in a pennant race to boot!

by tklawless on Jan 3, 2007 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A hypothetical....

Say we all agree that Gio is a lesser prospect than Danks, although maybe not by much. Could the Rangers have gotten Freddie without using Danks? Would that have been preferable to McCarthy? I have to think about that a bit. If the Rangers could've gotten Freddie for Diamond and Masset, would that have been a better deal for Texas? First, presuming that Diamond is a slightly lesser prospect than Danks, this hypothetical trade would mean the rotation spot would be filled for one year guaranteed. It would cost 10-12M/yr to fill it beyond that. Second, Freddie's last three season have been as productive as one would expect from a #2 or better in terms of ERA+ and IP. Third, Freddie will turn 32 next season. Still a tough call to determine which route would most likely result in the most production for the Rangers.

by rooster on Jan 1, 2007 10:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

A good trade

that would never have happened. I don't think Williams would want Diamond, he obviously would ask for Danks first in any deal. If that kind of deal had happened, people would probably say it was a good trade for TX. But I'll take the upside of McCarthy, and controlling him for a few years along with the risk of trading Danks, over a 'safer' trade for Garcia.

by t ball on Jan 1, 2007 10:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

that we could have topped Gio/Floyd without Danks or Hurley, no. In fact, I know we couldn't have. In terms of value, there is a HUGE drop-off from them to Volquez, Diamond and co.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 1, 2007 10:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gio

That was someone Kenny Williams had drafted, that he gave up in the Thome trade, but that he wanted back.

He was more attractive to Williams than an equivalent players in another organization would have been.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 1, 2007 10:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He's also

a top 100 caliber prospect, and we don't have anyone besides Danks and Hurley who are close to that.

by Brett Perryman on Jan 1, 2007 10:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

May not be new stuf but I appreciate your

point of view. Good post.
I like the trade for McCarthy and think you are right about stabilizing the rotation for more than just one year. The only downside on Bmcac is he hasn't done it yet. All signs are there that he will do it, but he still has to break into a MLB rotation and be successful. He will certainly get his chance this year.
I also like Garcia as a #2 for the Rangers. Ideally JD will be able to trade for a one year rental of a vet that go with Millwood and Padilla. My reasoning is that breaking 3 guys in the rotation is tough. No slight against the guys competing for #5 spot as they are certainly worthy. A veteran who could be counted on to eat up innings would allow BMac and Tejeda to slide down to #4 and #5. Rupe, Loe, Koronka et al provide solid depth for the injury probability. I also would like a guy to a one year deal. Next year Tejeda, Bmac and the others will hopefully be better from the experience a year in the bigs can provide.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 1, 2007 10:56 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I keep going back and forth on this.

And I think this is a bad trade. I just like Danks waaay too much.

by Longhorn on Jan 1, 2007 11:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

well...

now that we don't have Zito, it seems like a very good idea. We would've had a giant hole in the # 3 spot, and would've had to overpay for somebody like Lieber or would have had to give two spots to training camp battle winners instead of one. let's say McCarthy's not all that good this year, maybe starts 30 games and wins 12, with a 4.85 ERA. he's got the upside, he's got the contract, and he's got the size and age to really come into his own in the future, and even though he wasn't dominant, he's got the experience of facing big league hitters. I'm completely satisfied with 3 years of those four starters, and a chance at a 5th starter to many promising names (Loe, Rupe, Koronka, Rheinecker, Volquez, maybe even Mulder) and then further down the line, maybe Hurley, Diamond, etc. mature enough to step in where Millwood and Padilla bow out? If not, there's always more free agency...

Hicks + Daniels = Equilibrium

by Walter Sobchak on Jan 3, 2007 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder when

Hurley or Diamond can step in the rotation.

by myoungfan11 on Jan 3, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would be delighted

if BMac made 30 starts, 12 wins and had an ERA of under 5.00 this year. I truly believe he is capable of much more especially beyond 07. I worry about him struggling much more than that.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 3, 2007 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he can

do better than a 5.00 ERA probably a 4.65-4.50 ERA would be nice.

by myoungfan11 on Jan 3, 2007 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I too think he can,

but would not be suprised if he struggles this year. That in no way should be taken as a slight against him. I simply worry that anyone MAY struggle in a new situation given the level of competition.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 3, 2007 5:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He is also

a better pitcher when a starter i think he has between a 4.13-4.19 when he is a starter i think he might suprise me and have a breakout season

by myoungfan11 on Jan 3, 2007 6:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

McCarthy

He has pretty decent WHIP numbers for a guy his age. I don't think I've ever seen him pitch so I really can't make an educated prediction, but if he continues to keep people off base then I don't think the Temple will hurt him that much.

I don't like that they're counting on a guy with 150 career innings to nail down anything other than the last spot, though.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Jan 3, 2007 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Why count on him as a #3. In the future he looks like he can be a top of the rotation guy. Push him too hard and expect too much and you open up the possibility of disappointment and all that baggage.
Protect the investment in him by putting him behind three vets and you improve the chances he will meet/exceed expectations. Loosly translated that mean a successful year.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 3, 2007 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

At the same time, there aren't many good veterans around at this point. To get a decent one you'll pay dearly in prospects.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030210121425/http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=tex

by Dustin on Jan 3, 2007 9:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and the bullpen

the important thing to remember is this - if our pitchers can go a good 6 innings, our bullpen should be able to dominate the 7th, 8th and 9th with its depth and talent. Benoit in long relief when necessary, CJ Wilson, Frankie Francisco, Littleton, Mahay and Feldman in 7th inning situations, and then the knockout punch of Otsuka and Gagne - of course this is all "on paper" and the season's expectations don't always align with the reality, but we've got some great depth now, especially with either Rupe or Loe available for the pen as well. it'd be best to sign Mulder and have him ready by the All Star Break, and then sign a big bat if necessary at that junction as well

Hicks + Daniels = Equilibrium

by Walter Sobchak on Jan 3, 2007 11:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Somtimes we can

go 5 innings with Otsuka,Gagne,Littleton,Fransisco he has to be healthy.

by myoungfan11 on Jan 3, 2007 6:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think with the Rangers pen

the game gets shortened(sp) to 6 innings.

"He looks like a pink nightmare"

by boomer1 on Jan 3, 2007 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's not annoint the bullpen

just yet. Bullpen arms are notoriously unpredictable. The Rangers had a good one last year, but I remember years past when the same players returned and did not repeat solid performances and the bullpen that was counted as a strength. suddenly became a weakness.

What the Rangers do have is depth and flexibility. Hopefully that means that if an arm or two goes down or just pitches badly they plug in someone else (like '06) and the bullpen as a whole keeps going.

by t ball on Jan 3, 2007 7:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs