But it still hurts a little.

Nice synthesis.

Maybe BMac wasn’t too excited about learning the cutter and that fed into a little bit of the “coachability” arguments that a few Chicago writers through out there?

If he doesn’t get a good major league pitching coach, they should probably tar and feather him, and make him clean up Galloway’s piss bucket for the rest of his life.

lots of stuff that I think is dead on.

to add to that. Pretty well thought out. Even Hindman, who hated the Danks deal, thinks Connor was partly responsible for the troubles of late.

over half a dozen posts, so you wouldn’t have to put out those “Nothing out there this morning. Sorry.” blogposts.

His job isn’t a contentious issue.

If the team clunks out of the gate in 2009, he will be fired. He’d need incredible traction with Nolan to last another 3rd/4th place finish.

is absolute garbage. Calling him a 2 pitch pitcher, and one of those pitches – his curveball – sucked? Come on. How do explain away all of his success with the addition of a freaking cutter?

if you are going to blame the pitching coachs then you are blaming JD, because HE HIRED THEM, if they are supposedly ruining every pitcher then he should FIRE THEM.

until we have winning season, JD should not be respected as a good GM especially when he had the talent at the beginning of his tenure to be a winning team

also…what is exaclty is “the plan”? I

I guess orignally his plan was to try to win and get veterans but fail horribly and lose, and now it is to get shiny prospects so he can back up his plan to fail horribly every year and but this time he will plan on losing?

One thing I’d love to see is Granpa Urine do a cut/paste paragraph rebuttal of this post.

Now of course, that’d require him knowing what the interwebs are…..well and having the ability to form coherent thoughts.

   I’m sorry but I really can’t buy into any of this “the plan” strategy and if we only stick to it we’ll see a contender in 2010 (or is it 2012 now). JD proved to be incompetent in dealing for major league ready players that could make a difference – he didn’t skin anyone but skinned often enough. He also failed to make the kind of quality free agent signings that would turn the team around. So, he retreated to “the plan” which I really think should be called the JD job perservation plan. Build the farm system. That’s no plan, virtually all major league teams are strongly committed to building the best farm they can. He also traded big chips for guys that were in the low minors so the due date for a contender could be put back even further. We all keep talking about how we hope the team is there in 2010.
   Make no mistake, the A’s and Angels have good farm systems too and arguing that ours is a #1 or #3 and their’s are only #5 or #6 misses the point. As long as those other teams are better at development or free agent signings and trading we will be constantly pushing the due back back. We’ve lost a lot of good players, position and pitching, to not have a better rotation than we have.
  We’ve lost out on free agent signings like Torii Hunter, missed deals like Josh Beckett, and have lost blue chip players like Alfonso Soriano and Mark Texeira with only the promise of tomorrow.
  I know that no GM will make all the right moves, but think of a Ranger team with Tex, Chris Young, Adrian Gonzalez, Hunter, and Danks. I’m tired of just accepting that the Rangers won’t win anytime soon and I think Nolan is as well.

else he’ll place a call to Nolan and demand all pitchers learn the cutter!

On a side note, it’s not just the S/T guys making the “Fire JD” noise (Although they’re making a lot of it), has anyone read the comment section of DMN? It’s nothing but complainers, most of whom probably couldn’t pick Danks out of a lineup nor Young (If he were average height) yet constantly they’re griping.

I’m glad to read the commentaries by both you and Keith Law. I’ve been hoping for a long time that an article like this would be posted. I couldn’t agree with you more and I really hope it doesn’t come back to bite me in the ass in 2-3 years if we don’t become contenders. I would hate for Josey Wales and Steal Home to be right about something.

Quite frankly, I think this ultimately comes down to how you evaluate a trade. You can either evaluate a trade ex ante or ex post. Ultimately, the only fair way to evaluate a trade and is to look at the contemporary opinions of that trade and whether or not it was a reasonable risk to take at the time.

At the time the Danks-McCarthy trade was made, it was a reasonable, if not solid move. McCarthy had a better track record, no injury concerns, and was much more highly touted than Danks. Regardless of how the trade ends up, all a GM can do is make a trade and accept the risk associated with that deal.

Similarly, when Daniels dealt Hamilton for Volquez, he fully admitted he was dealing two players with a high level of uncertainty. There was a lot of risk involved, but the organization made the determination that Hamilton had either a higher upside, a greater probability of realizing his potential, or filled a more important role in the organization. Even if that deal hadn’t have worked out, I would still give Daniels the benefit of the doubt because it was a move made purely based on the evaluation of risk and reward.

Only one deal Daniel’s has made stands out to me as an example where it was clear that he or the organization had made a bad deal, and that was the Gonzalez and Young for Eaton and Otsuka swap. That was, based on the information available at the time, a clearly bad trade.

The other deals, even those that haven’t worked out, were pretty reasonable and understandable deals. I’m not convinced that the Danks for McCarthy deal is an indication of bad talent evaluation, but rather just a case where we took a risk and lost.

I don’t think there is a clear record to indicate that Jon Daniels is that bad of talent evaluator, either. At the very least, he has put together such a strong farm system and improved this organization as a whole to the point that I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt going forward.

This is the best you have done in articulating your Rangers Philosophy (the “I don’t trust Nolan, and you shouldn’t either” and “Tom Hicks is an idiot” posts, while possibly (probably) accurate, rang more of anger and conspiracy theory than this well-reasoned argument. But it all fits in nicely here.

Baseball, as with many things in life, is a risk-reward analysis. The job of a GM is to minimize possible losses and maximize possible gains. But fundamentally the players are random – some of your possible losses become big gains, and some of your possible gains fail. The Danks-McCarthy deal is just that – a well reasoned deal that just broke the wrong way for us. But fundamentally, the only way to improve is to take well reasoned risks. This is what people fail to understand.

As for the cause of the problems in this organization – I don’t think Mark Connor has ever seen enough blame. As the pitching coach, he was both responsible for developing pitchers from AAA guys to MLB guys, as well as understanding the talent in the upper part of the system. And we know that the Rangers failed at each of these. First Young, then Danks, then Volquez (and I guess Galaragga, kind off)- all guys who excelled elsewhere because the Rangers either didn’t know what they had or didn’t have the ability to develop them. I fully believe that had Danks stayed in Texas he wouldn’t be what he is today because Mark Connor could not have done what Mark Buerhle has.

The best move of 2008 has been letting Mark Connor go.

But I will.

Adam wrote:

Is it possible — just possible — that those folks in the media who were tight with Buck and felt he got a raw deal in getting fired, that liked Connor (who, by all accounts, is a good guy) and didn’t care to look too far beyond the surface, are letting their personal relationships color their opinions?

I don’t think it’s a matter of letting their personal relationships color their opinions as much as it is their opinions being colored by personal relationships combined with their ignorance of the game and their need to lob bombs from the majority position.

I used to prefer reading the Startlegram’s Sports section over the Dallas Morning News’, but I can can sum up their Rangers coverage in less time and for less money by tuning into Rangers Replay and listening to the mouthbreathers try to be funny about pitching and John Daniels and how C.J. Wilson is too fruity to close.

Five minutes of that is equivalent to reading one Geezerway or Jolly Full Enema column about the Rangers. I’d like to see the people paid to write about the Rangers actually try sometime like they do at the Morning News.

Someone at Mets Blog suggested this trade:

Wonder if Maine, F-Mart, Castillo, and Murphy would get us Ian Kinsler and Salty. That guy would be a good fit. Sign Manny and CC. Texas upgrades their biggest weakness, lose a bat (but they already have them), get a guy who can DH if you can’t find a position for him, get a top outfield prospect (we know how much they love top outfield prospects , and I’m just hoping they take Castillo :-).

Any shot? Would you guys do it?

this board gives me tired head.

But I appreciate the insight, AJM.

The hindsight Nostradamuses have been working my fucking nerves lately.

Looking at the reaction threads Z posted the other day, even Hindman, who was leading the charge against it, wasn’t as against it then as he maintains now. At least not on LSB, anyway.

I also find it kind of implausible that, like some suggest, if the team gets off to a slow start in 09, JD will be fired. Daniels was obviously retained for anything but the immediate results on the field, and if he is fired, in say, May of next year, it will be Hicks’ doing and not Nolan’s.

Question: Isn’t Leo Mazzone currently unemployed, and if so, what are we waiting for?

Excellent piece, by the way, Blogamemnon.

I’m confused. A year ago, the Rangers traded away a tall, lanky right-handed starter from their own farm system because, we were told, he wasn’t built to pitch here. Meanwhile, the General Manager appeared to be stockpiling lefties. Since then, he said that he’d rather see his own pitching prospects fail here than succeed elsewhere. Yesterday’s trade of John Danks and Nick Masset for Brandon McCarthy was an abrupt change of philosophy. Chris Young, we were told, couldn’t hold up physically over a long, hot season in Texas. He was an extreme fly-ball guy and waaaay too homer-prone. He had to go. In spite of those negatives, whether real or not, Young was proving to be just about the best pitching prospect to have come out of the Rangers system in ten years and he was traded away for what they (erroneously) hoped would be one year of Adam Eaton and a couple of years of setup man Aki Otsuka. The Rangers threw in their best hitting prospect, Adrian Gonzalez, as part of the deal. Young (and AG) thrived in San Diego and the Rangers probably regret having made that deal. Yesterday, the Rangers traded away the best left-handed starter they’d developed in 15 years to get Chris Young back. Brandon McCarthy is a excellent young pitcher, extremely similar to Chris Young. A 6’7", 195 lb. right-hander, McCarthy is a fly-ball pitcher — extremely homer-prone (17 in 84 inning last year; 13 in 67 inning back in 2005) — who “faded” late last year, posting an 8.31 ERA over the final eight of his 53 appearances out of the White Sox bullpen last year. Tall and skinny like Chris Young. Fly-balls aplenty like Chris Young. Much more homer prone than Chris Young. Late-season “fade” even worse than Chris Young…. McCarthy showed many of the same statistical attributes in the minors. In 2005, he went 7-7 with a 3.92 ERA for Triple-A Charlotte, yielding 16 homers in 119 innings with a 0.91 G/F ratio. But maybe it’s unfair to suggest that McCarthy isn’t a good bet to last a full, big-league season just because he faded late in the season as a rookie in 2006. After all, McCarthy did not fade late in the season for Triple-A Charlotte back in 2005, going 3-0 with a 1.91 ERA during the month August… which brings to mind the fact that Chris Young went 2-0 with a 1.48 ERA for Oklahoma in August of 2004. But Young was labeled as unable to withstand a full season after posting a 3.51 ERA in six August starts and a 3.86 ERA in four September starts…as a rookie. His ERA in his final five starts of the 2006 season for the Padres was 2.56. He held hitters to a .122 batting average during that month. Some fade, huh? So that’s why I’m confused: It just strikes me as very odd that every argument made against Chris Young is also true of Brandon McCarthy. Last year, they had to get rid of Young. This year, they have to sell their best prospect to get a very similar package. What you are supposed to like about this deal (or probably do like, if you’re not me) is that it would appear to make the Rangers better in 2007 (especially in light of Jon Daniels’ “admission” that the Rangers probably aren’t going to land Barry Zito - though that may have been nothing more than crafty posturing) without giving up on the future because McCarthy will be under Rangers control through 2011. But I believe that the White Sox got the best player in the deal and another very very promising arm. The Rangers gave up a lefty with a proven ability to adapt and who, I believe, would ultimately have been an excellent fit in this ballpark for many, many years. With McCarthy, I’m not so sure about the fit. I’m not the least bit worried about McCarthy “fading” late in the year, just like I wasn’t worried about that with Young. But the homers…that’s another story. Scary. And I’m not so sure that this deal makes the Rangers better in 2007. As the youngest starter in the Pacific Coast League at age 21, John Danks was among the very best pitchers on that hitter-friendly circuit over the last month and a half of the season when he posted a 2.32 ERA and gave up just one homer in six starts. Will Danks be ready to hold down a rotation slot on opening day in 2007? Doubt it. But he’s closer than you probably think. And if the White Sox do give him a job on the back end of their rotation in 2007 he may struggle early but I have all the confidence in the world that he’ll be rock-solid by July if they hang in there with him. I’ve enjoyed watching Danks grow up in this system. It’s been truly fascinating. I believe in that kid like no other prospect I’ve watched during my tenure writing the Rangers Farm Report, including Ian Kinsler, so I’ll admit that in spite of my best efforts to place my visceral reaction to this thing (which wasn’t pretty) in the rear-view mirror, I’m extremely biased in his favor. When you watch a young man eliminate every weakness in his game, one by one, when you watch him turn weaknesses into strengths, watch him mature emotionally, intellectually, physically and just keep getting better, and better, and better, it’s hard not to fall in love with his potential. It’s hard not to believe that he’s always going to do what he has to do to succeed. I also count it as a significant check in the plus column that the same guy who plucked Jeremy Bonderman out of high school picked Danks out of high school (I don’t think the Rangers feel that way, however). But I digress…. It’s going to be very hard for me to watch Danks “succeed for someone else.” Much harder than watching former Rangers prospects Travis Hafner, Aaron Harang, Justin Duchscherer, and Doug Davis succeed for someone else. And I fear that I’m going to hear that Daniels quote – “I’d rather see them fail here than succeed for someone else” – ringing in my head for a good 15 years. To sweeten the deal for Chicago, Texas threw in Nick Masset, a guy with tremendous stuff who appears to be, at long last, on the verge of truly realizing the enormous potential others have seen in him for years. The White Sox — who see him as a future closer due to his 96 mph cheese and cutter / slider — have made absolutely no secret of their admiration for Nick Masset for quite some time and yesterday they got their man as a throw-in. Masset’s never been consistent. He may never be. But I’m not betting against him either. From a pure talent / stuff standpoint, he might be the best pitcher in the deal and there’s no question that he came a long, long way in 2006. McCarthy, in spite of being extremely homer prone, will probably turn out to be a pretty good pitcher here. Jon Daniels is thrilled. You are probably thrilled. The few local pundits who have weighed in on this deal so far seem to be thrilled. The “insiders” I’ve talked with about this deal seem to be thrilled. I am not. I’m just glad that Grady Fuson didn’t draft Eric Hurley.

I’m in no way a Jon Daniels apologist, but I also don’t think he’s doing a poor job.

I think a lot of the divide on this issue comes from the definition of what everyone thinks the Rangers GM should do.

Is the Rangers GM’s primary responsibility to win right now, to put this team in a position to win next year? Is it to build through the farm system and prepare the franchise for a 5-8 year run in the future? Is it some sort of combination of the two?

I think it’s easy to become impatient with this franchise, especially considering the lack of postseason success that it has suffered. It’s a lot tougher to resign yourself to the idea that this franchise does have a vision, does have a plan, does have a future.

The pieces, in my opinion, are coming into place. You look at the monstrous amount of pitching talent in the minor leagues, the surplus of good-to-excellent catchers, the development of bats in the minors, the emergence of people like Josh Hamilton and Ian Kinsler and Chris Davis as potential “core” guys, and you start realizing that this is becoming a successful franchise.

Is all of this due to Jon Daniels? No, but a good amount is.

Then you look at the bad: the San Diego trade, the Danks trade, the Carlos Lee trade (to a certain extent), signings like Jennings.

Is all of this due to Jon Daniels? No, but a good amount is.

The bottom line is, if you think this team needs to be in a position right now this season, every season, you’re going to want Jon Daniels gone. That could explain FWST’s dislike of Daniels, since they would sell more papers and more advertising if they have a contender about which to write.

If you think this team should follow a plan and put themselves in a position to be a contender for a 5-8 year stretch, then you’re going to think that firing Daniels is going to be a bad move or, at the very least, an unnecessary one.

I tend to subscribe to the latter.

I have no idea why any of you talk to Seth/StealHome.

Intelligent baseball conversation is out the window, and it’s really weird reading some of you truly get worked up over the guy. Treat him like you did your little brother when he was being a nuisance and you couldn’t whip his ass… ignore him and he’ll lose interest.

Good stuff from the Klaw and good analysis on your part.

I disliked the trade when it was made, but the revisonistas who want to make it look like Kazmir-Zambrano: Pat Duex! are just not being truthful.

And I just read through this entire thread and let me just say that good god was that a beating. I had no idea that Seth-Dot was Steal Home. I thought he was just another dolt. I don’t know what’s more depressing… That Steal Home is back, or that so many people here engaged him in conversation.

But great read.