Sunday morning stuff
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 9:27 AM CST
Email
PrintJim Reeves' notes column today includes some discussion of Nolan Ryan being frustrated with the results of the winter meetings. Ryan says there is too much talking and not enough action.
An item out of Baltimore says the Orioles and Rangers talked about Hank Blalock at the winter meetings, with Baltimore having interest in Blalock playing first base or DH for them. Not sure what sort of fit there really is there, though.
I know it is the offseason and all, but still...there is a remarkable lack of news out there right now, it seems to me.
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ryan Quote
“I don’t know that I’d make a good general manager.”
Glad to hear it.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 28, 2008 9:36 AM CST reply actions
Nolan
He should have brought some snow monkeys to the Winter Meetings if he wanted some excitement…
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
Snow monkeys
Glad I could provide a laugh. And no, they don’t ever get old…
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
Peavy is still on the market apparently...any interest?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/12/peavy-trade-not.html
Peavy is under player control until 2012 with a club option in 2013.
"Sooner or later, prospects kill you, because you hang onto them." - Greggo, 11/22/2005
Of course
But he’d have to waive his no-trade to come here.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 9:47 AM CST up reply actions
More on a Blalock Trade
There has been some talk of trading Blalock to the Giants for some of their pitching. MLBTR linked to an article yesterday about Sabean’s willingness to listen on trade proposals for Sanchez. From the article:
“We’re going to have to be open-minded,” Sabean said, although he repeated that he wouldn’t obtain a player who’s eligible for free agency after 2009.
I guess this puts a damper on a trade with the Giants.
by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 28, 2008 10:11 AM CST reply actions
Two things
1) It’s mlbtraderumors.
2) “Open minded” generally doesn’t preclude exceptions to GM statements to whomever
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 28, 2008 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
And a third.
3) We’re talking about a pitcher that isn’t any better than our in-house options.
Sanchez isn't any better than Feldman, Hurley, Harrison, or Hunter?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
You don't think any of those guys are capable ...
of putting up a 5 ERA over the course of a full season, if they had Sanchez’s prior experience going in? If that is the case, why are they still in the system?
No, I think they are
I just don’t think it is a given that Sanchez isn’t any better than all those guys.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
The question really isn't whether he's better ...
it is whether he’s significantly better. If a trade isn’t going to make you significantly better, then why waste your trade ammunition?
Actually...
…sitting here and looking at it, I think Sanchez probably is significantly better than those four I listed.
He had a sub-4 FIP last year. He’s a lefty who throws hard. He allowed fewer fly balls than ground balls last season.
If I had to pick one guy out of the Sanchez/Hurley/Harrison/Feldman/Hunter grab-bag to succeed next year, I’d pick Sanchez. And I think he’s definitely a better long-term bet than Feldman or Hunter, and he may be a better long-term bet than Hurley or Harrison, although I’d have to think on that for a while.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
I disagree.
His performance last season is comparable to Feldman’s. Both were relievers trying to transition to the rotation. Both faded badly after the ASB. The only difference is that Sanchez misses more bats, which means that when he gets contact, he’s getting hit hard. Maybe he’ll improve, but given that he’d have to transition to playing at TBiA and wouldn’t have the luxury of a pitcher hitting 9th, I don’t think he translates well to Arlington or the AL. I think many are in love with his K rate and are simply overlooking the negatives like his WHIP, poor stamina, and proneness to getting lit up in high pressure situations.
Feldman
He had a FIP over 1 and a quarter runs higher than Sanchez. Even taking into account park effects and the change in leagues, Sanchez was better than Feldman.
Also, Sanchez has a history as a pro of being a starter. He started quite a bit in the minors. Feldman, until this past season, only relieved as a pro.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 1:44 PM CST up reply actions
Wouldn't being a LHP
be conducive to Sanchez’ success at TBiA?
"A ~.650 OPS from a COF should get you deported, not traded for."
- The Huntressatron
by inactive lsb user on Dec 28, 2008 1:47 PM CST up reply actions
True on Sanchez's history as a starter.
But that really hurts your argument. If you look at his history, he has always struggled with stamina. Plus, his K/BB ratio has gotten worse. His BABIP last season was higher than Hurley (by a lot), Harrison, and Feldman. I really don’t see how, with the numbers he’s put up in the NL, especially on the road, he’d be significantly better than our young guys.
?
Plus, his K/BB ratio has gotten worse.
Uh, if you compare it to his numbers in the minors, I guess. He hadn’t pitched over 50 innings in one season until 2008, so we get into sample size problems when you compare those kinds of numbers. As an aside, his K/BB only worsened from 2.21 to 2.09 between 2007 (52 IP) -2008 (158 IP). His K/BB was 1.43 in ’06 (40 IP).
His BABIP last season was higher than Hurley (by a lot), Harrison, and Feldman.
…So it’s a bad thing that he was unluckier than those guys?
I really don’t see how, with the numbers he’s put up in the NL, especially on the road, he’d be significantly better than our young guys.
Because it was his first full year in the majors, he’s 25, and he has unbelievable stuff. I watched Sanchez on a handful of occasions last year during business trips to San Francisco. Statistical analysis aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could want Scooter f’ing Feldman over him.
I'm hardly a Feldman booster.
That was his third season with significant time in the show. If he had only pitched a few innings in the bigs in ‘06 and ’07, your point would have more weight. You can cherry pick all you want, but that doesn’t make his stamina issues disappear. And chalking his BABIP as simply “unlucky” is silly. That’s a pretty clear indicator that he was hit hard when he was hit. I don’t think he’s a better option than Harrison and Hurley for sure. Feldman will not be so much worse than Sanchez that we ought to trade away commodities for the limited upgrade. The jury is still out on Hunter.
Look beyond the strikeout numbers.
I can't believe I'm continuing this argument.
If he had only pitched a few innings in the bigs in ‘06 and ’07, your point would have more weight.
He pitched 40 innings in ’06 and 52 innings in ’07. My point has quite a bit of weight considering it was made to provide context to your statement that his K/BB has gotten worse (oh noes, a 1 season decrease of .12 in K/BB ratio).
You can cherry pick all you want, but that doesn’t make his stamina issues disappear.
How did I cherry pick? I used his K/BB numbers for every season he has played in the majors. Also, when did I say anything about stamina issues disappearing?
And chalking his BABIP as simply "unlucky" is silly. That’s a pretty clear indicator that he was hit hard when he was hit.
Matt Harrison’s LD% and HR/FB% – 23.5, 11.2
Eric Hurley’s LD% and HR/FB% (Hey, you brought him up, I’ll ignore the sample size problems) – 21.7, 10.6
Jonathan Sanchez’s LD% and HR/FB% – 21.4, 8.4
Newsflash: BABIP is mostly reflective of the defense behind a pitcher and luck.
I don’t think he’s a better option than Harrison and Hurley for sure.
Feldman will not be so much worse than Sanchez that we ought to trade away commodities for the limited upgrade.
If you say so Champ.
Look beyond the strikeout numbers.
You’re the one who brought up K/BB. I just provided a little bit of context to your point.
I can't believe you continued it either.
Given the weakness of your counter, you should have left it as it stood. A guy with his ML experience should have been better last season. He has serious stamina issues; he walks too many batters; and, your apologist stance on BABIP aside, when batters make contact against him, bad things happen more than when they make contact against pitchers we already have in our own system. At best, he’s a back-end of the rotation starter. And we already have plenty of those in house.
Your move, Ace.
Just responding in kind.
I’ve had a relatively low tolerance for the jackassery that’s been running rampant around this place lately. I’m getting tired of these trade proposals for bottom of the rotation types like Sanchez.
Maybe something good will happen this week and give us all a fresh topic to get excited about.
Hilarious.
I’ve had a relatively low tolerance for the jackassery that’s been running rampant around this place lately.
Note that the definition of “Jackassery” for this guy is disagreeing with him.
I’m getting tired of these trade proposals for bottom of the rotation types like Sanchez.
Totally my fault. I’ve been floating so many trade proposals I’ve lost count.
Ok.
I remember an argument you had with Chase where he basically gave up because you refuse to admit you’re wrong in any way whatsoever, and got hostile almost immediately. I’m going to follow his lead and just concede after this.
A guy with his ML experience should have been better last season.
2008 was his first full season as a starter. Again, and I can’t believe I’m fucking pointing this out so many times, he pitched 40 innings in ‘06 and 52 innings in ’07. You talk like he’s a seasoned vet.
He has serious stamina issues; he walks too many batters; and, your apologist stance on BABIP aside, when batters make contact against him, bad things happen more than when they make contact against pitchers we already have in our own system.
A. I can’t speak to the stamina issues. Whether they continue or he improves in his second year of starting, I don’t know.
B. Yes he does walk too many batters, that’s absolutely a problem.
C. Here’s where you fall down. My apologist stance? Oof.
D. I have no idea where you can get this from…
When batters make contact against him, bad things happen more than when they make contact against pitchers we already have in our own system.
…When I put up his LD% and HR/FB% numbers compared to Harrison/Hurley. Millwood had the highest LD% in the league and a 9.3 HR/FB. Feldman and Padilla have better LD rates than Sanchez, but neither of them come close in terms of HR/FB%.
So, to re-iterate:
When batters make contact against him, bad things happen more than when they make contact against pitchers we already have in our own system.
Not so much.
He's
A debater and a rhetorician like myself. While it can be grating at times, I can’t help but get a little tingly when skillful guys engage someone else, even if the ire is a little over the top.
For what it’s worth, you’ve both made some pretty good points, and with more analysis than I’ve ever put into it. Peace and love, peace and love.
by brettgardner on Dec 29, 2008 12:29 AM CST up reply actions
There's a key difference.
You know (eventually) when to admit you’ve made a misstep, as opposed to getting openly hostile and throwing some insanity back in my face.
seems more like a clumsy butcher to me
Pretty feeble attempt at an argument in my opinion. Basically, he uses 3 points:
1. ERA – most everyone here knows this is a juvenile way to make a pitcher comparison.
2. Sanchez gets hit hard – he has presented no evidence for this, and has ignored the counter evidence.
3. Sanchez lacks stamina – he has presented nothing but hot air to back this up.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
Oh, Christ.
Reading comprehension obviously isn’t your strong point. Look at the guy’s innings pitched in every year where he’s been a starter. He flames out in the 5th inning. Look at his stats on pitches 1-50 and then look at them after that. As a starter, he’s making an excellent case that he belongs in the pen making short appearances.
When he gets hit, the ball tends to land safely in the field of play. That’s a bad thing.
When he’s in high pressure situations, those situations with men on 3rd base, he fares very poorly. Again, don’t take my word for it, go look at his friggin’ splits.
The point is not, and has never been, that he is a horrible pitcher. The point is that he isn’t substantially better than the young guys we have in our system already. I would expect both Hurley and Harrison to be better after 60-70 big league innings than Sanchez showed he was in ‘08. He’s simply not a top of the rotation guy. If he was, I seriously doubt SF would be looking for ways to push him back to the pen or out of their organization.
As far as ERA goes, it is a starting point for the conversation. It has hardly been my main point as to why he isn’t the next big thing on a pitcher’s mound.
I understand that you and your buddy disagree with my points. That’s fine. That’s what having an opinion is all about. But when you begin to adopt these sarcastic tones in your approach, like your opponent’s opinion is devoid of any thought or basis in fact, you tend to elicit a negative tone in response. If you don’t like that, then check your own tone before responding.
Sanchez stamina
OPS allowed:
pitches 1-25, .694
pitches 26-50, .670
pitches 51-75, .736
pitches 76-100, .839 (compared to Matt Harrison’s .878 overall)
OPS allowed:
first time through the order, .713
second time through the order, .742
third time through the order, .839
He gets hit harder the third time through the batting order, but certainly nothing so extreme to suggest that he needs to be a bullpen guy. In fact, his OPS allowed on pitches 76-100 is still substantially lower than what Harrison allowed overall. I don’t see any compelling evidence that stamina is an issue for Sanchez.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
Interesting
While that may seem logical for Athos’ argument, I would posit that it is evidence of a broader trend.
I won’t bother looking up the pitchers who significantly improve their OPS allowed after their first two times through the order. My intuition tells me that they are few and far between.
"A ~.650 OPS from a COF should get you deported, not traded for."
- The Huntressatron
by inactive lsb user on Dec 29, 2008 1:37 PM CST up reply actions
Some more points to help you out
Average OPS allowed, ML average on left, NL average on right:
1-25: .743___ .750
26-50: .726___.716
51-75: .763___.757
76-100: .795___.803
Outside of the 76-100 pitch point, Sanchez has been well above average in each of those splits. To me, that makes him sound like he is better than a back of the rotation starter, but that’s just me.
Same thing with number of times faced (ML on left, NL on right):
1st time: .727___.726
2nd time: .765___.764
3rd time: .800___.811
Again, above average for the first 2 times through the order and not too far below average for facing them the third time through the order. For a 25 year old pitcher in his first year as a starter in the Majors, that’s far from a guy with no hope.
And the BABIP think is ridiculous. The Giants just have a pretty bad defense.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
I'll try one more time.
I don’t think Sanchez is “hopeless”. I don’t think I ever said that. Most pitchers have lower numbers the longer they pitch. The problem is that when you are facing guys for the third time and you’re only in the 4th or 5th inning, you’re throwing too many pitches and your bullpen is going to end up having to work overtime every time you pitch. That’s not good, as I think the Rangers proved beyond a shadow of a doubt last season.
He’s been a starter for the majority of his professional career, and the stamina issue has been there the whole time. He doesn’t look better than the in-house options we have on the way or already major league ready. If you really expect Hurley and Harrison to put up worse numbers than Sanchez, then we are in serious trouble. I don’t think they will.
Now, y’all go right back to being dismissive, I’m done responding.
Well, gee whiz, your fiery logic and well thought out argument ...
has really put me in my place.
Go hump somebody else’s leg, little doggy.
Tell you what
Go educate yourself, then come back when you can carry on a conversation like a big boy.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
Get your feelers hurt?
When you tell someone to go hump somebody’s leg, then call them a little doggy, then get all pissy when you’re called out on it, indicates that you need to grow up. I disagree with you and it made you real angry. Am I supposed to apologize for that Athos? Or what?
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
Not at all.
You have a history of being a jackass, so my tolerance level for you is lower than for others.
And just what have you “called me on”? I don’t have a problem with those that disagree with me. Not at all. But when an assclown responds to one of my posts with “ridiculous” and no substance, I tend to dismiss them as nothing more than little doggies who are leg happy—an assessment that has proven accurate time and time again.
To certain posters here
Those Ryan quotes kind of go against your theory that it’s only because he is holding the reins that Daniels hasn’t made any deals…I think it’s just as likely that Daniels is having to counsel patience to Ryan.
No deals are better than bad deals if the value isn’t available. I’m perfectly happy to play the waiting game. The waiting game sucks, let’s play Hungry Hippos!
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
If JD ever tried to counsel Ryan on anything...
I’m sure Nolan would say “How patient were you with Chris Young, AG, John Danks and Armando Galarraga?”
JD is the messenger boy and it’s considered a good day when he doesn’t come home with a stinky diaper..
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Dec 28, 2008 10:45 AM CST up reply actions
sigh.
Theo has created a conundrum for himself, if that really is his stance. The only alternative is a Gerald Laird type.
Go Rangers!
Or he can go with his own in-house options.
At least, he could according to Over the Monster. My thinking is that if he doesn’t want to pay the asking price, he can go with this option and see how well he keeps up with the Yankees. Best of luck on that Theo.
I don't think he really wants to go with his in-house option.
At least, he hasn’t acted like a guy who is comfortable with his in-house option. He’s gonna get a guy. I think he’s just waiting to see if a more opportunistic situation arises for a catcher, or if there is an opportunity to use Buchholz for a bigger prize. The Boston media keeps throwing out Masterson/Bowden as trade bait with Gammons leading the way by saying he thinks Bowden is going to be a very good #3. I’ve always wanted to know to what extent the media reports actually mean something to other GMs. JD and Byrnes know what they need to get in return for Salty and Montero. Do the media reports provide any signal to them of what Theo is thinking? I would think they already have guessed or have been told by Theo what he’s willing to give up.
The role of the media probably isn’t all that decisive. My belief is that It probably has almost no role outside of shaping public opinion and giving the public the information it wants to read, but I’ve always wondered if there were on some occasions more to it than that.
I think Buchholz is a high price for a young catcher. If the shoe were on the other foot, I wouldn’t want JD to trade Feliz or Holland for Salty. I would hold those chips for something much more proven. I fully expect Theo to want a more proven commodity, like a Prince Fielder.
Go Rangers!
So...
Daniels has no power, doesn’t make any decisions, and just delivers things to Nolan to decide on?
Then why is Daniels still there?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 11:21 AM CST up reply actions
I think JD does a lot of the grunt work, gets conversations rolling,
is allowed to make the relatively minor decisions like letting Loe go but when it comes to the really big trades….JD brings those to Nolan before they’re approved.
Why else would Tom Hicks say “I guarantee John Danks would still be here if Nolan was here when that trade was made” ?
Yeah, it would be ideal if we had a GM that didn’t have to get his trades approved but we don’t.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Dec 28, 2008 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
Jesus.
I love how sure you are of that.
by brettgardner on Dec 28, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
Yep
Especially since Nolan wasn’t here when the Teixeira, Lofton, Gagne, and Padilla trades were all made.
But since Teixeira’s in the Hall of Fame, Lofton shouldn’t have ever been signed to begin with, Gagne went on to win a World Series ring, and Padilla had a mediocre season after being re-signed, I suppose little Johnny Daniels gets a big F-double-minus for all those moves as well…
"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky
hicks
so you believe that statement out of hicks’ mouth does that mean you believe everything or do you only believe what you choose to?
personally i think hicks if full of shit and everything that comes out of his mouth is shit.
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
Because Tom Hicks is a fool?
You really think there’s no possible way that trade is made if Nolan is here? Why?
Same with the San Diego trade…you had Buck and Connor pushing to make that deal, and you think if Nolan was here — a guy who reportedly is more in win-now mode — you are that sure that Nolan would have vetoed that deal?
I think Hicks makes dumb statements in general, and thinks that if he makes sweeping statements like that, he’ll convince the fans that Nolan will change things and make things better.
Don’t you remember Hicks saying that John Hart is the smartest man in baseball? Same sort of p.r. statement about yet another guy who, at the time, Hicks was sure had hung the moon.
Now, at the end of the day, does Nolan have to sign off on a major deal, much like Hicks does? Probably. But then, I don’t think that Nolan, or Hicks, is going to overrule deals lightly. If they were, they’d get rid of Daniels and hire a g.m. more in tune with what Nolan and Hicks wanted.
But there’s a big difference between Nolan being the de facto g.m., with Daniels just being an errand boy doing his bidding, and Nolan having veto power over moves. I’ve said pretty consistently that I think that if there’s a disagreement between Daniels and Nolan about what to do, Nolan trumps.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
Why you people play his game......
is beyond me.
Adam, that tells me that if
there is really going to be a major move made by the organization, it ain’t happening if Nolan doesn’t agree.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Dec 28, 2008 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
you are a dumbass
i have to make sure you hear this once a day for the rest of your life. maybe there is a website that will help me out.
Mandatory reading before suggesting a trade
It's funny how this dumbass is probably more accurate than
anybody you can mention in assessing this team over the past 6 years.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
Couple of presumptions there
- Assessing the team involves a great deal more than critique
- Assessors need notable credibility not just self esteem
I think I could make a list of between eight and ten whom I think have better analytical tools, more thoughtful insight, and maybe better accumulation of factual data. That said, you’d be right and seen as being right a lot more if self aggrandizing was left out and only point of view was made public.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 28, 2008 8:36 PM CST up reply actions
Which 8 to 10 do you think have done a better job
of assessing this team since 2003? I’d really be interested.
Keep in mind I said the 2004 Rangers would finish with at least a .500 record before the season, said they had a really good chance to win 88-92 games (20 games into their 2004 season (they won 89 games), said the crap they pulled after the 2004 off-season would kill them for years to come, said they’d win 75 games before the 2007 season (they won 75 games), said JD & Washington were hired more for their affordability than their competence, said Nelson Cruz would never cut it in The Show, said the 2008 Rangers would win 76 games (nailed the Pythagorean, missed the actual by 3 games) , said Ian Kinsler was on his way to becoming a star before 2007, said Ben Broussard & JJennings were terrible signings last January, said Josh Hamilton was among the greatest athletic talents I’ve ever seen (Willie McCovey with wheels or Willie Davis with power) before he ever became a Texas Ranger… I can go on.
“It aint bragging if you really done it.”
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Dec 28, 2008 10:40 PM CST up reply actions
The 8 or 10 I have in mind would be Adam, Jamey, Hindman, Evan Grant, Parks, Matschulat, Cook, and your pick of Sickles, Callis, Wes, whoever authored the Rangers’ Wikipedia page, whoever authored the LoneStarDugout page on Scout (subsidiary of Fox Sports), and probably Grant Schiller. Apologies to current blog patrons I’ve left out for brevity.
On the particulars, it may be nice that you keep running data on your premises but only you know if that log is accurate. JD was hired by ascension to the job with Hicks having input from the outgoing GM, and Wash was hired after successful interviews with Hicks and JD, and affordability may harmonize with their respective managerial experience, but is not and was not a selection criteria. Cruz will not only cut it in “The Show” but will seem to be a standout. Predicting wins and losses for a season is wholly a crapshoot, since you don’t have a handle on the multiple variables encountered during each series, much less the whole year. Join the masses with respect to Hamilton, and he is quite dissimilar to both McCovey and Davis, much more like a taller Mantle who doesn’t switch hit. I don’t really know why you think your defensive rebuttal is worth a reply, since some of the prideful items are obvious and some are flat wrong. Whatever totem you implore for insight needs some new carving. I’d rather not have made this a public post, but since you ask, and asked courteously, there you have it.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 28, 2008 11:52 PM CST up reply actions
Ed, Evan Grant had the 2004 Rangers winning 65 games and he had
the 2007 Rangers winning 90 games. He seems like a good guy but he really didn’t know what to expect the Rangers to do from year to year (perhaps to close to the situation?).
Jamey says he has a “hunch” the 2009 Rangers are going to contend…sorry I need more than that to take an opinion seriously. Quite honestly, that’s something fed from the Ranger marketing department.
Per the rest…The up and comer is Jparks. He’s hungry and has talent. Hindman? Temperment is always going to be the deal-breaker. We all have our hits & misses but nobody ever has to wonder if I’m worried whether or not my opinions will hurt my standing with the big club.
Per Josh…. I never saw the Mick in his prime so maybe that comparison is apt but I grew up in So Cal in the late 60’s / early 70’s and did see McCovey’s prodigous power and WDavis’ otherworldly speed up close.My assessment of those two skills as they pertain to Josh Hamilton are dead solid perfect and if Ed Coffin disagrees, with all due respect, I don’t really care.
That’s why they call it a “talking sport.”
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Dec 29, 2008 12:17 AM CST up reply actions
So I'm clear...
…Nolan was the one who decided to let Kam Loe go to Japan and to DFA Wes Littleton.
Nolan was the one who decided we were getting Beau Vaughan for Littleton.
Nolan picked out Moscoso and Melo as the guys we wanted for Laird, and handled that trade.
That’s your position?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 11:23 AM CST up reply actions
My admiration for Nolan has kicked up a notch
He’s got business ventures that he has to manage.
He’s overseeing the business side of the Rangers.
And now, he’s apparently also the g.m. of the Rangers, a job that is generally considered to be a 60-70 hour per week job.
I assume Nolan is one of those people who only needs 2-3 hours of sleep per night, because otherwise, there aren’t enough hours in the day to do everything he apparently is doing.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
Not sure what Balt has to give
But I read recently a blogger thinking about bringing Millar back on a one year contract to play first since they “lost” out on Teix. Blalock would be a step up from Millar.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
remarkable lack of news right now
I wonder how much this is a result of not having Evan Grant on the Rangers beat anymore.
"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM
Would anyone here trade Chris Davis for Matt Cain?
Or should SF add another player to this deal?
Um.
In a heartbeat.
"A ~.650 OPS from a COF should get you deported, not traded for."
- The Huntressatron
by inactive lsb user on Dec 28, 2008 2:36 PM CST up reply actions
Because Cain is...
…a good, not great, starting pitcher, who gives up a lot of fly balls and who is under team control for only 3 more years.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 4:03 PM CST up reply actions
Cain+
What if they add another player to the deal?
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 4:07 PM CST up reply actions
Well
There’s always the possibility of doing a deal. It isn’t as if Davis is untouchable.
I just don’t see why we should be so anxious to move Davis for Cain, or for Cain plus something, and I don’t know what “plus something” would be good enough to make a deal palatable.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 4:11 PM CST up reply actions
Cain just turned 24 in October.
He has yet to reach his ceiling. I don’t think there are any other pitchers of his kind available out there. SF is loaded with starting pitchers and very weak at the corner infield positions. We have Smoak and Ramirez for the future. All this makes SF a good trading partner.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 4:27 PM CST up reply actions
corner infield
ramierez is a corner infielder?
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
I'm not that enamored with Cain
I think he’s nice, but he’s not going to be a legit top of the rotation #1 guy.
And I don’t want to trade Chris Davis.
What are you going to do if it is 2010, the team is around .500 come July, and Cain won’t talk contract extension?
Trade him, and basically start over again?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 5:45 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah. Same argument on Greinke, except I like Greinke better, but I wouldn't trade CD for Greinke either..
In a trade with the Giants, I would think the only options are either go all-in and get Lincecum or hope they’re enamored with Hank.
I know. I know. What Lincecum would cost would defeat the purpose. So. A trade with the Giants seems really, really far fetched at this point.
Just for fun…
CD, one of Feliz or Holland, and a couple other highly ranked prospects or maybe someone like Byrd and one other highly ranked prospect. That’s probably a bit lean.
Go Rangers!
If you don't trade Davis
Then what will happen with Max Ramirez?
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 6:27 PM CST up reply actions
Well
He could end up as a DH. Or he could end up as your catcher. Or he could end up being traded. Or he could end up as a versatile bench bat, backing up 1B and C and DH.
The existence of Ramirez doesn’t, to me, create a pressing need to deal Davis.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 6:39 PM CST up reply actions
How about the existence of Scott Boras and Tom Hicks restrained budget?
Doesn’t that factor into this?
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 6:53 PM CST up reply actions
Wait
We need to trade Davis because his agent is Boras, even though Davis isn’t arb-eligible until after 2011?
If that’s the case, we need to go ahead and trade Teagarden and Borbon this offseason, as well.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 6:59 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't say we need to trade him just because of Boras.
There are other reasons as well. I would love to keep Davis, but if a stud pitcher is available then why not trade him? Smoak is better defensively and his agent is not Boras. Ramirez, another non-Boras player, might not fetch you that young pitcher that Davis would. Ramirez hits for a higher average and gets on base more. Of course, this is all risky given that Smoak only has 56 AB as a pro and Ramirez has yet to prove anything at the majors. At least we have Blalock for one year while Smoak gets ready.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
I have my doubts...
…that Ramirez will be as good with the bat as Davis. There’s a reason why Ramirez won’t bring you the return Davis will — teams don’t think Ramirez is as good as Davis.
Is Cain really a stud pitcher? Or is he a nice #2/#3 type who is a bad fit for TBIA?
The fact that Boras is his agent is irrelevant to me right now. He’s a guy who should be a cornerstone player for this team going forward, not someone we should be anxiously looking for a way to ship out.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:19 PM CST up reply actions
That's the same thing we used to say about Teixeira.
And we ended up trading Adrian Gonzalez because of that.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:22 PM CST up reply actions
Huh?
So because we made a bad trade involving Adrian Gonzalez, we need to trade Chris Davis?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:28 PM CST up reply actions
No
What I meant was that we made the mistake of thinking that Teixeira was a cornerstone player for this team going forward and ended up trading Adrian because of that. Now if we trade Max thinking that Davis is a cornerstone player (no Boras player is one) then it better be for a good return (proven pitcher or really high upside prospect) or else he would end up as Adrian part two.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:34 PM CST up reply actions
The problem with trading Adrian...
…was that we were giving him up for too little, and that we were trading him despite the fact that there was room on the team for him at DH.
And as for Davis, he’s not eligible for free agency until after the 2014 season. It would be foolish to say that we can’t trade Max because Davis is a f.a. after 2014 and we might not have him after that.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:39 PM CST up reply actions
Teixeira blocked Hafner as well.
The thing with Boras players is that you have them for only six years no more. Smoak and Ramirez might be here for their whole career, who knows? Davis will be here for only six more seasons unless Hicks will be willing to overpay, which I doubt.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:47 PM CST up reply actions
Again...
So what? The problem with trading Hafner was that we gave him away for crap. If you have a choice between giving Ramirez away for crap or keeping him, keep him.
The fact that Smoak and/or Ramirez might or might not be here their whole careers is irrelevant to the discussion. They could switch to Boras at some point. Davis could fire Boras. Or Davis could keep Boras and still end up signing an extension with the Rangers.
The Boras factor should be de minimis at this point when weighing what to do.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:57 PM CST up reply actions
I just hope that the Rangers
don’t make the simple mistake of assuming that Ramirez has no position for the future when you can just move players around (Davis is versatile). Another team would take advantage of this in trade negotiations and use it against us.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:06 PM CST up reply actions
That happened twice and I already mentioned both occasions.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:07 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think either of those deals...
…involved teams taking advantage of the Rangers because they had a surplus in a certain position. Those were just bad trades.
Using your logic, we’re going to get fleeced if/when we move a catcher, because teams will use the fact that we have a bunch of them against us.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 8:14 PM CST up reply actions
We will not get fleeced.
JD knows he has no margin for error in the next trades that he makes. Notice that the Red Sox are saying that they will not trade Buchholz. They are trying to use our surplus against us hoping that we would settle for less. But this time we have learned from the past and are not giving in to that.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:21 PM CST up reply actions
They are saying they won’t trade Buchholz because they want to keep him because they think he is top of the rotation pitcher. If you have pitching you tend to try to keep the pitching until you have no choice or a better deal comes along.
Miami bound...
So then why are they making it harder for Buchholz
by exercising Wakefield’s option, signing Tazawa, Penny, and talking about converting Masterson into a starter? I wish the Rangers would do the same by signing a bunch of proven pitchers and then say that it is not blocking the younger ones.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:36 PM CST up reply actions
Look
It wouldn’t matter if the Rangers had one cather or four. They would still take the same stance on Buchholz if Salty were our only catching prospect. That is what teams do that have good pitching in the majors or minors.
Miami bound...
Would they do Buchholz
for Teagarden? I remember reading that they would.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:52 PM CST up reply actions
Evan Grant was the source.
But this was a while back. Not too old though.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:54 PM CST up reply actions
Davis
He can play RF or 1B. I don’t think he’s going to be good enough defensively to stick at 3B long term. He could also DH, of course.
But again, I don’t see why we are in a position where we need to trade Davis right now, just because we drafted Smoak and have Ramirez coming up.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 8:13 PM CST up reply actions
The trade does not need to be done right now.
Maybe next offseason. Smoak is not ready yet. Ramirez has yet to prove himself at the majors. This will be an issue once Smoak gets here. But I hope we either end up keeping all three or make a shrewd trade unlike those in the past.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 8:27 PM CST up reply actions
I just don't want to see Max traded for unproven pitchers
and then see him put up a .900-950 OPS for another team.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:27 PM CST up reply actions
So you'd rather trade Chris Davis...
…and see him put up a 900-950 OPS for another team?
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:28 PM CST up reply actions
Davis would get you a proven pitcher though.
Ramirez wouldn’t. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t mind keeping all three (Smoak, Davis, and Ramirez). Davis could move to 3B or RF.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:37 PM CST up reply actions
Davis isn't moving to right field.
It's a crazy messed-up world... It's a doggy-dogg world...
by oc on Dec 28, 2008 8:42 PM CST up reply actions
I have my doubts…
…that Ramirez will be as good with the bat as Davis.
Enlighten me.
It's a crazy messed-up world... It's a doggy-dogg world...
by oc on Dec 28, 2008 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
What is the fascination with Cain?
He’s a good pitcher, and he’s young, but he’s not the ace everyone wants. He’s a very good number 2 starter with 3 years left before reaching FA. Would you trade Chris Davis for James Shields?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Would someone really trade an ace for Chris Davis alone?
Davis is a great hitter of course, but teams value starting pitching more than hitting (in this case a Boras client). Also, Cain has a higher ceiling than Shields and is three years younger. I would want more than just Shields alone.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 4:17 PM CST up reply actions
Chris Davis
has amazing potential with the bat and is under team control for 6 years. Wait a year and my guess is that Davis will be one of the top 30 or so hitters in baseball and will still be extremely young, cheap, and under control for a long time.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Davis will not be that cheap though.
Boras will use Ryan Howard as an example in arbitration. He made 10 M in only his third year in the big leagues.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 6:25 PM CST up reply actions
Actually...
…it was Howard’s third full season, but his 5th year in the majors.
Davis won’t be arb-eligible until, most likely, after the 2011 season.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 6:40 PM CST up reply actions
Service time is what matters.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/philadelphia-phillies_18.html
Howard had 2.145 years of service time going into last season and still made 10 million dollars. Yes Davis will be cheap for the next three seasons, but not six. That was my point.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 6:48 PM CST up reply actions
Okay
I am aware that service time is what matters. Howard was a Super 2. He had 2 years and 145 days of service time going into last season, which made him a Super 2 eligible for arbitration.
Davis most likely won’t be a Super 2. He won’t be arb-eligible until after the 2011 season. And even then, generally speaking, arb-eligible players still earn less than their FMV in the open market.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:00 PM CST up reply actions
Boras makes a huge difference
He is one of the main reasons why Teixeira is not wearing a Rangers uniform right now. Had Kinsler, Blalock, and Young hired Boras, they would not have signed those favorable contracts (Young’s first one of course). At least Smoak does not have Boras as his agent and plays the same position as Davis.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 7:20 PM CST up reply actions
Okay
So what? Boras is his agent. We knew that when we drafted him. Same with Borbon and Teagarden.
I don’t see the point in trading away players because of who their agent is, when they don’t even have a year of service time.
You can worry about that in 2013.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 28, 2008 7:29 PM CST up reply actions
Rumors
The Dodgers and Rangers are interested in Andy Pettitte if he doesn’t accept the Yankees reduced $10MM offer.
The Sox are still unwilling to deal Clay Buchholz for Jarrod Saltalamacchia.
Sox Getting More Starting Pitching
According to Ken Rosenthal, the Red Sox are close to signing Brad Penny to a one-year deal. The two sides are still hammering out the agreement, and Penny would have to pass a physical.
Cool
Hopefully this should make them more willing to trade Buchholz.
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 4:31 PM CST up reply actions
they aren't trading bucholz
"I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." - Mitch Hedberg
That's what the Red Sox say.
But teams are always posturing, so how do we know for sure that they are not trading him?
by coolrangersfan on Dec 28, 2008 5:01 PM CST up reply actions
I still think it makes more sense to put Buchholz in the pen than to trade him.
Unless Varitek caves, I think this whole catcher thing is hanging in the balance until just before ST. No one really needs to make a move until then. Everyone knows Varitek is about as good as there is on the FA market. It’s in his best interest to string it out until someone becomes desperate.
Go Rangers!
I don't think that signing
would make them any more or less likely to trade Buchholz.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Red Sox sign Josh Bard:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/12/bard-red-sox-mo.html
Your 2010 Texas Rangers starting shortstop....(see pic)
I think the whole Manny Ramirez situation is funny.....
Teams either don’t need him, can’t afford him, or wouldn’t put up with him.
I think he will go to the Dodgers even though they have taken back their offer.
I feel sorry for the team that signs him to a multi-year contract.
t ball on MY - "hate the contract, don't hate the player"
Boston
I’m giving up on Buchholz.
The conversation Theo and JD are having probably concerns who Boston can add from their low minors to Masterson or Bowden to get Salty/Tea. I’m seeing a combination of haggled-over LA teenagers and one of those two starters being the max offer.
The only thing that might change that is losing Tek to some team that still hasn’t presented itself (I can’t even hazard a guess).
And this is underwhelming, but Boston doesn’t seem willing to pay for a catcher (any catcher) (this side of Mauer, anyways) with Clay Buchholz. Asking for Buchholz probably results in a spring-loaded, knee jerk demand for Feliz/Holland/Main to be added to Salty/Tea, and JD will not do that.
I see something like the Gagne deal going down – the last time JD demanded Buchholz – or nothing.
And nothing isn’t the end of the world at all. It’s possibly the best idea w/r/t the catchers.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Dec 28, 2008 10:58 PM CST reply actions
Blalock+ for Arrieta?
He is their fourth best prospect behind the awesome trio of Wieters, Tillman, and Matusz. Who can we add to this deal to convince the O’s?
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/prospects/y2009/profile.jsp?t=p_top&pid=453562
Have you seen
any rumor attached to Arrieta? It’s certainly an interesting mix of K’s plus ground ball ratio.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Even with those studs
they’ll need much more than Blalock to catch up in that division.
"A ~.650 OPS from a COF should get you deported, not traded for."
- The Huntressatron
by inactive lsb user on Dec 30, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
