Haigwood traded
by hightowersmith on Apr 19, 2007 5:12 PM CDT
Email
PrintJamey just flashed it (but can I post it QUICKLY ENOUGH):
The Rangers have traded LHP Daniel Haigwood (who had been designated for assignment last week) to Boston for RHP Scott Shoemaker and cash considerations.
The 25-year-old Shoemaker, drafted by the Red Sox in 2004, split both the 2005 and the 2006 seasons between High A, AA, and AAA, going 11-3, 3.98 between the three levels last year in 13 starts and 15 relief appearances. This season he has pitched twice in relief for AA Portland, giving up five runs (four earned) on seven hits and two walks in 3.1 innings, fanning a pair.
The Rangers will assign Shoemaker to High A Bakersfield.
Jamey
No opinion...must avoid penalty box...
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
x
Castro
by Arnold Babar on Apr 19, 2007 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions
At least.....
Yay!!!
And all so Jamey Wright could make one crappy appearance!!!
Woo-hoo!!! Awesome roster management, guys!!!
stupid moves
Then again haigwood was supposed to be a decent prospect.
You know
One pretty inspired move buried by a series of downgrades to nothing. This is the kind of thing that doesn't do much to hurt an organization but is a signal of what kind of GM you have.
yup
It's one dumb move followed by the next. Either JD hung around Hart too long, or someone is still pulling the strings
JD
Doug Mathis
That was another
by Brett Perryman on Apr 19, 2007 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions
well
Yep...just added him.
Shoemaker to Bakersfield
Rowe up to OKC, Mathis stays in rhythm sliding into the 5th spot in the Frisco rotation - Haigwood's departure had left a void.
Cruceta/Rupe/Koronka/Simon/Wood have some elbow room now in the OKC rotation.
OF'er Kevin West up to OKC, Anthony Webster takes his place in Frisco.
A 25 year old in A ball
God, I wish they'd hired Dombrowski. I'd give my left foot if somehow they could go back and time and nab him.
by Dustin on Apr 19, 2007 6:16 PM CDT reply actions
Yep
by Brett Perryman on Apr 19, 2007 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions
this seems much like
id take haigwood over wright any day of the week.
and yes, yes, yes on dombrowski.
by knockoutking24 on Apr 19, 2007 6:59 PM CDT reply actions
The trade
Take my commentary for what it's worth.
Messed up that URL pretty badly
http://mvn.com/mlb-rangers/2007/04/19/newsflash-daniel-haigwood-traded-to-boston/
that's a good take
what is often lost...
Think we could use a guy like that?
In my mind, and with the benefit of hindsight, we would have been better off without making any of these moves. German would be a lot more valuable to the current team than Castro or any of these other guys.
I don't know about that.
Here's the problem
So even if German wasn't traded, he would have ended up going on waivers in the spring, and likely have gotten claimed.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 19, 2007 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions
that is what frustrates me...
...so we end up with some 25 year old A-ball pitcher named Shoemaker.
It just seems to me that any way you slice it, there are some serious questions regarding the logic involved in this whole series of moves.
Except...
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 19, 2007 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think that's lost
by Brett Perryman on Apr 19, 2007 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions
majority of the way
I guess that my point is...
But I was also trying to point out that in addition to the poor roster management, there is also mounting evidence that the organization's evaluation of talent might need to be questioned.
State's exhibit A
I agree, in this case
The mother of all proof on the talent evaluation stuff, though, will come with McCarthy and Danks. Our top scouts LOVED McCarthy, as we've heard since. Theirs LOVED Danks (and apparently Masset). How right we were is a pretty big sign for me as to whether we have people who can recognize pitching talent, as I think I said back then.
As far as Young/Laird, the Rangers underestimated Young. But I think it was as much of a physical underestimation as a scouting one. And his first three starts this season seem to be a little more in line with what most would have expected last season, for whatever that's worth. As I said at the time of the trade, I'm almost more disturbed at their misevaluation/mishandling of Adrian Gonzalez, to be honest. I'm really not sure if they knew what they had there, athough I do know that Daniels liked him a good deal, as I remember him talking about him and Volquez during the 2005 ST, specifically about how both were vastly underrated outside of the organization.
by Brett Perryman on Apr 20, 2007 2:14 AM CDT up reply actions
"Recognize Pitching"
" How right [the Rangers] were [on Danks vs. McCarthy] is a pretty big sign for me as to whether we have people who can recognize pitching talent, as I think I said back then."
I think the proof is already in the puddin' my friend....
LHP Castro for LHP Haigwood; LHP Haigwood for RHP Rosterfiller Whatshisname; waiving LHP Doug Davis; drafting Drew Meyer over LHP Scott Kazmir; trading Justin Duchscherer for Luis Vizcaino (who was flipped for the great Jesus Pena); trading Aaron Harang for Randy Velarde; trading Chris Young for Adam Eaton; drafting Thomas Diamond over Jered Weaver; drafting TD over Phil Hughes; drafting TD over Scott Elbert; making CHoP a very rich man; opening day starter RA Dickey; Mickey Callaway; Tony Mounce; Pedro Astacio; adroit handling of Juan Dominguez & Edinson Volquez; and recently, two or three weeks of hearing about how great Jamey Wright is....
On the other hand, they were smart enough to grab Hurley when he fell into their lap.
It's been a great decade: A veritable seminar on identifying, developing and utilizing pitching assets.
If the Rangers make the right move on each of those decisions, this is what their rotation could be: (1) Aaron Harang, (2) Scott Kazmir, (3) Jered Weaver, (4) Chris Young & (5) Doug Davis...with Danks and Hurley waiting in the wings and tons of cash not spent on CHoP, Millwood & Padilla.
But, you say, then they don't have Otsuka. Correct, but they do have Duchscherer and I think that's a wash at worst.
Maybe they were right that McCarthy > Danks / Masset / Rasner (and the roughly two-years of service time differential between McCarthy & Danks / Masset. Maybe they were right to quit on John Hudgins. Maybe Julian Cordero is nothing but a throwaway throw-in guy. But it's impossible for me to give them the benefit of the doubt on any pitching personnel decision based on their track record this decade.
If only it was just a decade.
I don't disagree generally
"If the Rangers make the right move on each of those decisions, this is what their rotation could be: (1) Aaron Harang, (2) Scott Kazmir, (3) Jered Weaver, (4) Chris Young & (5) Doug Davis...with Danks and Hurley waiting in the wings and tons of cash not spent on CHoP, Millwood & Padilla."
doesn't really prove much... I think every organization could field a great starting rotation (as good as the one above or better) on players that they passed on, let go or traded away.
I guess I agree with your point, but don't think this argument makes the case.
by Brandon Wilson on Apr 20, 2007 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree that
by Brett Perryman on Apr 20, 2007 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions
A couple of things
- If we assume that the Rangers don't deserve the benefit of the doubt on pitching decisions, then, if they had turned down the Danks/McCarthy deal, wouldn't we have to assume they were wrong for rejecting it?
- IIRC, we had a similar discussion a couple of years ago, when I pointed out the history of ineptitude in regards to pitching, and your point was that anything that happened in the Melvin years (or, really, during the time Fuson was running the farm) was irrelevant because those guys weren't here anymore. We are kind of flipping sides, here, but I don't know that the decision to draft Diamond or trade Harang (who, fwiw, I suspect wouldn't be nearly as good if he had stayed here, rather than getting developed by the A's) really has any bearing on the decision to trade for McCarthy or Robinson Tejeda or draft Kasey Kiker.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 20, 2007 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, they DID make the deal
I pointedly did not include Danks / McCarthy because it remains to be seen whether that was a good move or a bad move. The decisions I did include are all, I believe, ripe enough to be called failures.
As for the Rangers' McCarthy > Danks evaluation, I do think that it is certainly not as simple as many mainstream media types make it out to be.
As you know, it wasn't Danks for McCarthy. It was Danks, Masset and Rasner for McCarthy. It was also the forfeiture of about two years of service time (at least a year and a half). And for a mid-to-low budget club like the Rangers, that matters (obviously).
Given all that the Rangers surrendered there (in terms of personnel and service time), my opinion is that McCarthy has to be not as good or somewhat better than Danks in order for the Rangers to have prevailed, but much, much better...and it's certainly possible that he will be. Moreover, by the Rangers logic, the trade will be justified if McCarthy is a stud-horse in 2007 and part of a Rangers playoff club this year. That too is possible, I suppose.
Based on the track record of these guys, I'm not willing to bet that, in the end, they will have landed on the winning side of that deal. I hope they were right, but I'll believe it when I see it.
It is my opinion that the Texas Rangers make really bad decisions when it comes to evaluating pitchers, more often than not. You are free to see it differently, of course, and there is evidence to support your viewpoint. Seems they did well on Dellucci for Tejeda. And whoever decided to draft Hurley when he fell to #30 made a good decision. I'm not sure either of those were close calls (in other words, I'm not sure you couldn't find 25 GM's who wouldn't have pulled the trigger on either of those decisions), but they certainly deserve to be squarely in the Win column for the Rangers.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that the Hart / Daniels regime is not responsible for Harang. It's just ugly. Painfully ugly. Probably doesn't mean anything, but it was the same owner who repeatedly falls in love with aging "name" guys like Velarde who signed off on that deal.
My point
That was my point...that, by your line of reasoning, it is presumed that their decision, whichever one it was, would be the wrong one.
I disagree about the service time issue. McCarthy is a free agent after 2011. Danks, if he stays in the majors all year, is a free agent after 2012. That isn't irrelevant, but I don't think it is a huge deal.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 20, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Do you really think
I think Hicks gets too much credit and or blame for decisions made by the baseball people.
I think its pretty clear our last 2 GMs knew little to nothing about MLB pitching talent, and there isn't much indication that JD is great. Although, to his credit, JD's staff doesn't come close to approaching those suckholes of the early 90s where the team ERA were consistently in the high 5s.
Not exactly
re
Two comments on one thing...I agree that the extra two cheap years that the White Sox get out of Danks is an underreported/underconsidered part of the deal. However, and this may just be a matter of semantics, but I don't think that McCarthy has to be much, much better. I think if he's clearly the best pitcher of the four in the deal, up to free agency, the Rangers probably at least tie and probably win.
As you know, it wasn't Danks for McCarthy. It was Danks, Masset and Rasner for McCarthy.
Actually, it was Danks, Masset and Rasner for McCarthy and Paisano. And Paisano may be not even close to what the Rangers are claiming, but if some of those Venezuelan articles are at all accurate, they're pretty high on him, and he could at least be a more prominent player than Rasner. Of course having said that, I did spend most of last season hyping Rasner as someone worthy of attention, so who knows.
I really root for Masset, and I realize that he has very good stuff, but that's one place where I think I differ from you some on the deal, I'm not convinced that he's very likely to be the guy to make the Rangers sick to their stomachs over the deal. Having also said that, the fact that he was in the deal definitely doesn't need to be ignored, for sure.
by Brett Perryman on Apr 20, 2007 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I think that there
As far as how that relates to the Danks/McCarthy deal, my attitude is that if I had faith that the Rangers had people who were better than average at evaluating pitchers at that stage of their careers, I'd have a lot more faith that they did the right thing. As is, I was, in my gut, a little to decent amount against it, and I don't really see what any of their decision makers has developed in terms of a track record that should make me rethink my opinion, just on the basis of his prowess. If McCarthy does wind up being the best pitcher in that deal, it would be a step in the direction of having more faith in them. If not, it's going to cement my inclined feeling that those men don't see anything more than many of the rest of us who have evaluated baseball players as small time coaches or as fans or whatever, when they watch a young pitcher.
by Brett Perryman on Apr 20, 2007 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Diamond
I remember Grady saying he thought Diamond was the equal of the Rice trio, a viewpoint I have never even remotely read anywhere else, then or (obviously) now.
And Meyer over Kazmir or the slew of other studs, just boggling...
The thing that made me think, when reading all the examples you listed, is what a vast medley of fingerprints there are on those misfires. It would make me feel better (not sure why) if I had one or two guys to blame, instead of six or eight.
There's alot of stupid spread around there...
by Brian Thomas on Apr 20, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions
edit...
...so we end up with some 25 year old A-ball pitcher whose ancestors apparently made shoes for a living.
and
And that, my friends is a real Sh*tF*ck
by peteincaviglia on Apr 19, 2007 11:21 PM CDT reply actions
I've dreamed of getting
This is just awesome.
Shoepitcher
also, even though they're not all 5 performing like it at the moment (not unlike our offensive "rocks" of MY, Tex and Hank), name the last time we had a rotation anywhere near as promising and exciting as Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, Tejeda and Loe? Two solid veterans that can throw a bunch of innings and three promising youngsters still looking up to their primes? We've got stability (unless the younger ones completely fall apart), and that says a lot
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
