Lebreton on trade posturing

by Adam J. Morris on Jul 23, 2007 11:32 AM CDT in News

Missed this this morning...but Gil Lebreton has a column up today on the Rangers being sellers at the deadline, and the posturing that goes on in the media with g.m.s carping about how unreasonable the sellers are...

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I've been saying this for a while

JD is a very smart guy; and he is not going to be manipulated by these media plays. He knows that GMs are feeding guys like Stark juicy, sniping quotes with the express intent of forcing him to reduce his demands.

JD is smart enough to know that if they are stooping to this level, then they are desparate for our players.

I see these stories about teams valueing prospects more and not wanting to deal with JD as positives - not negatives. When people try to twist your arm, that means they really want something...

by JBImaknee on Jul 23, 2007 11:31 AM CDT reply actions

Faulty Assumption

Upon what evidence are you basing your statement that JD is a smart guy? Since it can't be his actions, I assume it is because Hicks said so...and that is not a reliable source.

Hit me in the eye...maybe I can see better.

by Clueless on Jul 23, 2007 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions

As much as I agree...

... about the gamesmanship being played by the GMs regarding value... I guess I'm still struck with the fact that I don't recall many BIG(capitol letter big) trades at the deadline in recent years... I could be completely lost here... But can anyone give me the rundown of BIG trades that have gone down over the last couple deadlines... I qualify the two big pieces we have, Gagne and Tex, and as potential BIG movers that we haven't seen in a while... though I'd love to be wrong about this, I do think the current MLB landscape does overvalue ceiling and does overvalue draft picks... which leads to less and less big name trades at the deadline... someone please, please give me some recent examples to prove my gut wrong...

fear me, i'm the voice of reason....

by ivysafety39 on Jul 23, 2007 11:42 AM CDT reply actions

Recent years

Part of the problem has been that really big name players, like Teixeira and Gagne, tend to be on teams that are contending. So it isn't obvious that you'd always have a top player even on the market at trade time.

That said, Carlos Beltran in 2004 comes to mind - and that was a pretty big trade with the Royals netting two of their current regular players.

The biggest name I can think of who was NOT traded at the deadline when he should have been was Soriano. And I think all Ranger fans can acknowledge that his value is questionable, especially compared to Teixeira.

It is much more likely you'll see a Carlos Lee-level player on a mediocre team. And there seem to always be a couple of those types of trades every year.

by JBImaknee on Jul 23, 2007 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions

Beltran

That went down well before the deadline, actually. Before the All Star break.

loves me some "loves me some"

by trza on Jul 23, 2007 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Eh

fine... his value was because the Astros got him for 3 months. Well, whoever gets Teixeira gets him for 2 months plus one year.

by JBImaknee on Jul 23, 2007 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Big trades

The recent ones I can think of are McGwire to the Cards and Randy Johnson to the Astros. Maybe David Cone to the Yankees.

Well Mr. Burns had done it. The power plant had won it. With Roger Clemens clucking all the while.

by WyoRanger on Jul 23, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Can't forget

Garciaparra.

Well Mr. Burns had done it. The power plant had won it. With Roger Clemens clucking all the while.

by WyoRanger on Jul 23, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Am I ignorant

to think that Bobby Abreau and Carlos Lee were pretty big deals last year.

by badradiorules on Jul 23, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions

those...

...were the only deals i could think of as well... i don'think of mcgwire or rjohnson as "recent" i guess...

the biggest similarity i see is that those were both deals that were pretty overwhelmingly seen as one sided... i mean... abreu was basicaly let go so philly wouldn't have to pay him... and c.lee/cruz for every rangers spare part + CoCo is seen by most at this point as a doug melvin coup...

the fact that c.lee and abreu are the closest comparisons we could draw really scare me.....

fear me, i'm the voice of reason....

by ivysafety39 on Jul 23, 2007 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Carlos Lee deal

The Rangers got the better part of that deal.

Without going into all the details, we got 2 months of great production from Lee (not his fault we fell behind in the race), a decent prospect who got an extended look this year (Nellie Cruz), and 2 solid draft picks in the best draft in years (Borbon and Main). Because we didn't have Coco, we were able to sign Gagne, who will himself net us either prospects, draft picks, or be the best closer in baseball for the next 3 years....

The Brewers got an all-star closer and two guys who won't be major league regulars. Good for them - we didn't need him anyway, and if you think we could get Main and Borbon quality players for Coco right now, you haven't been listening

Even if you consider the Mench / Cruz part a wash, you cannot say Melvin had a coup there.

by JBImaknee on Jul 23, 2007 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Thats a very....

...sound reasoned response.... But if you asked anyone who isn't Rangers fan who got the best of that trade and I'm sure they'd struggle to make such a definitive answer... i agree the rangers prolly got the best of it if one of many things happen...

-we keep gagne long term and he's better than Coco
-Main/or/Boubon become a big league contributor
-Cruz stops impersonating Pedro Cerrano
-Gagne nets us a longterm solution at 1b/OF/SP

if any ONE of those things happen it was good deal... if not... i can't see it as a positive...

fear me, i'm the voice of reason....

by ivysafety39 on Jul 23, 2007 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Couldn't agree more with LeBreton.

That is all.

by hightowersmith on Jul 23, 2007 11:51 AM CDT reply actions

The time ...

The time for this media manipulation has ended. If I am Daniels I stand my ground till the last day of the deadline unless someone comes close to his demands.

To me, the contending teams have their back to the wall more than the Rangers. We could easily keep Gagne and Lofton (get picks or resign them for next year)or keep Tex and Aki.

These other teams have this shot at making the playoffs, and how sick would they be if they fell just a little short, because their average closer blew 2 games in the final week.

by clinton33 on Jul 23, 2007 12:07 PM CDT reply actions

Trade Posturing

I agree with Clinton. The Rangers do not HAVE to trade anyone and JD should hold out for what he thinks is fair value. Worse things could happen than keeping these guys.

by Jea103 on Jul 23, 2007 12:53 PM CDT reply actions

Teixeira

is a valuable asset that should provide us with a nice return but are we overrating him just a bit? I happen to think we saw his "career" year in 2005. The deployment of the defensive shift has taken its toll and I've seen nothing but a decline since then. Nevertheless, he's still an excellent glove and an above-average bat.

JD's in a predicament here. This trade will have to be a productive but I do think we have to take the best offer at the daadline if its at all reasonable. This team isn't going to contend next year and our trade leverage will do nothing but decline as he approaches free-agency, particulary if he gets off to his usual slow start next year. Ugh. Draft picks are far too unpredictable. This isn't the NFL. Surely we can parlay Teixeira into a minor league proven, major league ready talent.
Select the best offer and do it.

by kwood on Jul 23, 2007 12:56 PM CDT reply actions

Excellent Post !

you're right just do it and get it over with.. 2 draft picks is NOT enough..more times then not they amount to absolutely nothing..and thats after waiting several years

0dds of being able to trade whiffy whifferson by Gil Lebreton "1000 to 1 - Good Luck Brother!"

by NYCMuscleFag on Jul 23, 2007 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Overvaluing? I think not.

In the entire MLB this season, less than one player per team is sporting a .900+ OPS. Only 14 players, including Tex, are sporting an OPS above .950. Tex would be the anchor of the offense on most teams. He had a down year last season and still posted an .885 OPS.

In other words, players with Tex's offensive capabilities don't exactly grow on trees. Throw in his gold glove defense, and you have a special player. Dumping a player like that for "anything reasonable" is just plain stupid. Why should we let some other team rob us in exchange for a couple of mid-level prospects that are no more guaranteed to be major league contributors than the two draft picks we get if he bolts after 2008? We already tried this once when we shipped the best player in baseball to Yankees in 2004. That didn't work out so well.

by Athos on Jul 23, 2007 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

Whoa

anything "reasonable" isn't robbing us. I don't consider mid-level prospects reasonable and that wasn't what I was referring to. What will rob this team however, is if we play this thing out and settle for draft picks. That would be plain stupid.

By the way, much of what's inflating Teixeira's OPS is this year is coming from OBP and while that's certainly not a bad thing, a lot of walks is not what this team is needing for our clean-up hitter. Particularly this sorry offensive bunch. His power is considerably off the last two years. Draw any conclusion you like.

by kwood on Jul 23, 2007 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions

I can only respond to what you said.

You stated: "but I do think we have to take the best offer at the daadline if its at all reasonable." Perhaps you should define a package that you think would be "reasonable." Then these little mis-interpretations won't happen.

So what is a "reasonable" return for a hitter like Tex?

by Athos on Jul 23, 2007 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Well let's see.

I said "reasonable" which is defined as:
1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical 2. not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason

so that choice of words alone, should imply that I'm not interested in getting fleeced. The "King of Semantics" should know this.

I'd like to see Teixeira in the National league for the next year plus. The Dodgers seem to have parts to offer which could include Loney and others. A package of Kotchman and Nick Adenhardt from the Angels might work. I'd love Hughes but he's likely be untouchable.

As highly regarded as Tex is, surely JD is being bombarded by interesting offers. I just don't think it's prudent to settle for draft choices after wasted year, which is where I'm afraid this is headed.

by kwood on Jul 23, 2007 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Also ...

... Tex's OPS isn't purely OBP driven. He's slugging .544, which is above his career slugging percentage. That puts him tied for 23rd in the league this season. And that's with the non-entity that is Sammy Sosa hitting behind him all season.

by Athos on Jul 23, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions

once again

you've choosen to mis-interpret. I didn't say his OPS was purely driven by OBP. I said "it's inflated" by. Once again, a semantics problem.

Incidentally, this years .544 slg. eclipses his career avg. primarily because of the .514 he put up last year, which drove down his still relatively young career mark. This was part of my point in the original post. I believe 2005 will prove to be his "career" year and he's tailed off since. His Hrs/PA has tailed off every year since 2004, from a high of every 16.1 appearence to his current 23.3.
Still a great player, though I hate to see him subjected to the defensive shift.

by kwood on Jul 23, 2007 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions

So his one "down" year isn't ...

... just a down year, it's where he's headed for the rest of his career. I just don't see where you can jump to that conclusion when his offense has picked back up this season--even after his slow start. I understand it is everybody's gut instinct to attack him and downplay his accomplishments since he made the comment that he might like to play for his hometown team (that arrogant jackass, etc., etc.), but your position on his performance this year was off. He's hitting for power than most everyone in the majors and is getting on base at a high rate as well. Turning that into a negative or using it as evidence that Tex is in decline is pretty silly.

by Athos on Jul 23, 2007 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions

Again, I never said that.....

...but you insist on taking liberties with my comments and misquote me. I said I think we've seen his career year, which was '05. I could be wrong but I would wager with that opinion given the chance.

Secondly, my opinions don't stem from any hatred for the guy, nor am I attacking him. I simply think the wise move for JD and the future of our team, is to take the best trade proposal offered, rather than settle for draft choices after next seasons futility...provided the offer is reasonable. I think this particular trade deadline presents the best opportunity for maximum returns.

You're free to wish for the contrary.

by kwood on Jul 23, 2007 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions

Once again ...

... you said you'd seen nothing but decline since his "career" year in 2005. That's just wrong. He had a bad season last year and has rebounded this season, albeit not all the way to his 2005 level. Decline implies that he's steadily getting worse. There's not really another reasonable interpretation of what you said. Now if what you said isn't what you meant, fine.

And you're trying to have it both ways. You're saying you have to trade Tex for the best offer you get, but then expect that offer to be reasonable. I have yet to see a reasonable offer for one of the best hitters in the game that plays gold glove defense. Maybe I'm reading too much into your comments and what you're really saying is that we shouldn't trade Tex unless the offer exceeds X. However, stating that it is imperative that JD trade Tex for the best offer made at the deadline (as long as it's "reasonable") sounds like you're advocating getting rid of him even if the team trading for him isn't giving us any of its best prospects.

by Athos on Jul 23, 2007 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Athos

this is my last comment on this thread because I think you just enjoy being argumentative. Perhaps "decline" wasn't the correct term as you eloquently defined it because his stats this season, thus far are slightly better than last year, but still not up to the '05 season which I believe will ultimately be his finest.

That's not the point. I think this is the optimum opportunity to trade Teixeira. This trade deadline, this season. Logic would support that. I don't believe the team will be close to contending next year and if he gets off to his usual slow start, in his free agency year, then next seasons trade deadline would not provide us near the leverage we have at this moment.

There's nothing imperative about it but if you want to maximize your trade opportunities, the time is now. If Teixeira is "one of the best hitters in the game", and a gold glover...which I don't dispute, then surely there are attractive offers in the mix and likely quite a few. It's my belief that we select the best of those and begin our rebuilding process that is sorely needed.

by kwood on Jul 23, 2007 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions