The only downside I remember most people complaining about is that we got a righty for a lefty. Contrary to some people on this board’s belief, there wasn’t a large contingent of people in Dallas saying “JD screwed it up again!”

Some people here only want to view the trade through the lens of hindsight and yes, looking back, it is a horrendous deal for us, but at the time and the information that was given, it seemed about even for both teams at worst. Bad luck or the Sox knowing something about McCarthy’s health that we couldn’t have known at the time is what obviously swung this hugely in favor of the Sox.

Granted I wasn’t really on here at the time, but I do remember plenty of people questioning the deal at the time. I was cautiously optimistic, but I don’t think it’s "revisionist history’ for some to say that there was some doubt at the time.

For anyone who feels better after reading Sheehan’s note, Law has some follow-up for you.

“stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid…”

if the trade wasn’t made, would Danks still be better, or would our pitching coaches had him as the injury plagued pitcher.

We would have a pretty damn good offensive infield and the defense should improve with a full year of davis at first and Reyes at SS.

I really can’t see us trading any pitching away to get him but I would start with Elvis and possibly Teagarden. After that I’d throw insome Beltre, JMJ type players. But in NO WAY any pitchers.

Jamey Newberg (Dallas, TX): Is David Murphy your ROY?

SportsNation Keith Law: $5.

Fortunately Callis wasn’t responsible for it.

The Brandon McCarthy-for-John Danks trade was largely considered a win for the Rangers at the time.

i could only read part of the article, but it seems as though the writer is trying to lead his story by saying that danks was a failure resurrected by chicago, right?

wasn’t he one of the ranger organization’s three most touted pitching prospects? the whole dvd thing?

i don’t ever remember him being considered having a “failed-prospect sheen”

regardless of who was perceived to have made better in the trade (irrelevant now that we have witnessed the outcome), i am having trouble retracing back to any “thank god we got rid of this turd” comments.

…is that the Rangers were going into the season without enough starters to round out the rotation. I remember thinking I didn’t really like this deal but it seemed like it had to be made (or one like it) so the Rangers would have enough starters. Danks would clearly have been rushed if he was counted on to hold down a rotation spot at the time of the trade. It was like swallowing Castor oil…unfortunately, the Rangers got sicker after taking the cure.

My opinion, but after seeing bmac throw his last few games of the season, I saw a lot of potential of being a legit number 2 starter, and possibly a number 1. I still think its to early to say the whitesox won the deal.

and you posted here back then, peep these two threads.

Original fanpost breaking the story.

First official AJM post on the subject.

Reactions to the deal post.

All good stuff to read. Bunch of interesting comments from everyone on all sides of the deal.

For the record here are my first two posts on the deal:

Bleh
Not sure how I feel about this trade. We give up two guys I really liked, but we’re getting a young pitcher with a lot of potential. I’m sort of numb right now.

But my initial reaction is that I wish we didn’t do this deal.

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2006 2:45 PM EST actions actions 0 recs

Followed by this one 20 or so minutes later.

Yuck
After doing a little research on McCarthy… I wish we could undo this trade and keep Danks and Massett.

This makes our ‘07 rotation better (since I doubt either Danks or Massett would’ve contributed meanigfully this season), but I don’t care.

Damn this trade.

by thedirkatron on Dec 23, 2006 3:05 PM EST to parent up actions actions 0 recs

I was in Oklahoma visiting my parents when this trade went down. I must admit never seeing either pitcher in person or on tv and after some quick research on the cube I really thought the Rangers got the better end of the deal at the time. That said I wonder like someone pointed out above(I think Ed) how Danks would have done here with our pitching coaches. I’m still pro Bmac and think he will show what he can do when healthy so in Nolan I trust for now and I will give Bmac all next year.

IMHO I really don’t think either Volquez or Danks would have had the year they have had here.

Just think the Rangers could have had Beckett and Jon Lester. How nice would that have looked in the rotation? I know the Marlins were probably using us to get what they wanted out of the Red Sox but what would have happened if JD said ok right away instead of waiting? I blame the MLBPA for the Arod/Manny, Lester deal.

Retrospect, review, reassess, revile. Whatever. The one constant is that a pitcher, any pitcher, can go down to injury at any point in time. And I’m pretty much convinced that mishandling pitchers (Connor or ??) has added to the risk. It isn’t just rationalizing to suggest that those who fare better after leaving Texas, do so for more reasons than luck or a change of scenery.

and reading more about what he did with the Rangers pitchers, I have no faith that Danks or Volquez would have been anything here. Both changed their approaches a lot this year. Danks added a cutter, Volquez moved his arm slot back. And we’ve seen the mess he made out of McCarthy which is the main reason this deal looks so bad. I would have preferred to fail with our own guys, but it does show that the problem wasn’t developing good future Major Leaguers, the problem was with the coaching staff fixing what wasn’t broken.

where were all these people last year after danks went:

6-13, 5.5 era, 140 ip, gave up 28 hr, walked half as many as he struck out (54: 109), had a 1.54 whip and an 86 ERA+?

vs mccarthy last year

5-10, 4.87 era, 101 ip, 9 HR given up, 48:59 bb:k, 1.56 whip, 93 ERA+

i guess last year was a toss up?

now major league career wise:

danks: 18-22, 334 ip, 43 HR, 111:268 bb:k, 1.356 whip, 4.23 era, 110 era+ (59 games, 59 starts)

vs

mccarthy: 13-20, 275 ip, 21 HR, 106:186 bb:k, 1.366 whip, 4.54 era, 101 era+ (93 games, 39 starts)

not a LOT of difference career wise other than danks has stayed healthier (and been a starter vs mccarthy spending a lot of time as a reliever)

lets give it a total of 3 years (after next year) before we pass judgement

I know the Brewers are going to try to trade Fielder this offseason. I think the rangers should at least take a look at it and DH him. That guy will hit 50 hr’s every year in Arlington. Imagine a lineup 3 years from now of Smoak, Davis, Fielder