Grade the Laird trade
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 8, 2008 1:00 PM CST
61 comments
Cast your vote on the Gerald Laird trade...
0 recs |
61 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
B +
Great Success!!
"The Gerald Laird trade is a GREAT SUCCESS! Who'd we get for him again?"
Tom Hicks
by LAMuscleFag on Dec 8, 2008 1:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B+
I like it, but I did not need to change my pants after reading it.
I had a paper route when I was a kid. I was supposed to go to 2,000 houses. Or two dumpsters.
by TheBZA on Dec 8, 2008 1:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B for me
i would grade it as above average. i like moscoso. he seems like he could be a hoss this year for us out of the bullpen
by dustinvandeman on Dec 8, 2008 1:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B
I think it is solid but unspectacular, although I will say that these secondary type trades seem to be some of JD’s best. He did very well with the Lofton trade and had a solid return for Gagne. The RicRod for Padilla deal also worked out very well.
Fire Ron Washington
by pblack on Dec 8, 2008 1:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
C+ for now.
The only reason I can see to grade it higher is if you’re just happy to see Laird gone. At this point, we don’t really know what we got back. Detroit is certain as to the caliber of player they’re adding to their MLB lineup and we’ve taken a grab bag of two prospects who may or may not pan out.
Obviously, if either of the pitchers actually amount to anything productive, then the grade goes up, but based on the fact that both are presently unknown commodities, I can’t give JD anything higher than an average grade at this point.
by Athos on Dec 8, 2008 1:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I cant agree more with that Athos,
Laird being gone and the logjam basically sorted out for now, should warrant a higher grade in itself. BUt to grade the type of trade and the players we got back, I graded it the same as you, C+.
The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ
by NYTXFAN on Dec 8, 2008 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
B
Seems about right
"Yeah, like I had a chance there" - Lancaster batter, after striking out against Derek Holland
by chrisR on Dec 8, 2008 1:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B-
Acceptable and needed to be done, but not too exciting.
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Dec 8, 2008 1:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B
maybe B- considering the way the whole catching situation was handled last season. It’s a shame that the Tigers didn’t have a deeper system to draw from, but considering the current market for catchers and the need for playing time in Arlington, it was a good enough deal at the right time.
I still expect a big shock at Christmas time.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 1:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B- at first thought,
but a B on how close Moscoso seems to contribution at the MLB level. The bonus baby would seem to be highly valued based in signing bonus…and I’m sure Preller & Co’s have a handle on him.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Dec 8, 2008 1:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A-
Big grade from me, because I was of the opinion that JD wasn’t going to get anything of value back for him. While neither of the guys coming back are anyone to get excited over, they both have potential. Moscoso in particular is the type of player I want available when the bullpen is burnt out in August. Anytime you can get decent ceiling for a superfluous guy like Laird, I’m happy.
I agree with tball – this grade is for the trade itself, not the overall way Laird et al., were handled the last 12 months. If I included that, then I’d have to go to a B- or C+. Laird should have been traded before the season, if for no other reason than to give Salty a place to actually develop.
by JBImaknee on Dec 8, 2008 1:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B
Gets a fifth starter/long reliever/bullpen arm who could contribute this year. Gets a nice young arm. Considering the flameout rate among pitchers, the more you get the more likely a couple make it to the majors. Clears some salary and clears up the logjam at the catcher position.
by jf55510 on Dec 8, 2008 1:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Obviously this trade had some timing implications to it...
one day before GM meetings seems pretty significant…here’s a question.
Which team benefited the most from getting this done before today?
A) The Rangers- now no team can give the Rangers the line that they have to trade a catcher. We truly could go into the season with this current crew.
B) The Tigers- possibly figuring if conversations started getting deeper this week, Laird’s value could shoot up?
by slimshadty12 on Dec 8, 2008 1:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A
I don’t think there were going to be anymore serious suitors for Laird.
by venturafearsnolan on Dec 8, 2008 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I liken this a bit to the Manny trade
On a far smaller scale. Everyone in baseball knew that Theo needed to get rid of Manny yet he still got good value in return. That’s a win. Basically the same as the Rangers. Everyone knew that we pretty much had to move Laird yet JD still got some value back. While not lopsided, it’s a decent trade.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Dec 8, 2008 1:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Totally
I’m so, so, so, so, so happy this trade turned out the way it did. We got a young, cheap, live arm that struck out 1/3 of the batters he faced and walked ~2 guys per 9 innings and another young Latin arm for Gerry. Everybody knew we had to move him, and we still got solid value for him… nobody could have expected a Sanchez type for Laird.
On the other hand, we are still 100% in the driver’s seat with Salty and TT. We can leave Max in AAA where he will proceed to knock the cover off the ball. Unless somebody gets hurt, trade values for these guys should only go up. I guess TT might lose some of that 1.300 OPS luster, but who really sees him as more of an .850 guy anyway?
Solid move. We moved the more expensive player that needed to go, kept the 3 we aren’t getting the offers we feel we should, and added two more arms to the race. Like it a lot.
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
by trident on Dec 8, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A-
My opinion on it is about the same as everyone else’s, though, so I think I have a way too lenient grading scale.
by philkid3 on Dec 8, 2008 1:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what would happen
If we lock the 2 guys who voted F and the guy who voted A+ in the same room for a few hours
by Telegraph on Dec 8, 2008 1:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think AJM
accounts for one of the F’s with his Gerry Laird man-crush and all.
"You’re the worst poster here I think."--- brettgardner
by red shoe ranger on Dec 8, 2008 5:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
B+
There were two types trades I wanted to see go down for Laird that I believed were possible. Either get a good RP who can help our bullpen now and will be around for at least a few year, or get top talent that has a high risk but also an amazing reward. I think this type of deal holds a huge reward for the Rangers, and with a piece like Laird, that is the best you can really hope for.
Although its not an A or above. IMO, those types of deals are ones where you clearly win or get a great piece added to your team.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Dec 8, 2008 1:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Fangraphs has an interesting take on it
Here, analyzing the overall package Laird brings to the table and the financial aspect.
Kanye, you want to be the voice of this generation? Get in line! It goes me, Obamagirl, the Freecreditreport.com guys, then It's a tie between you-and Crocs.
-Stephen Colbert
by Conjunction on Dec 8, 2008 1:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
B
Moscoso seems as though he could be in the majors by the end of the season, and Melo seems like a good young prospect. Didn’t really think we could get that much for Laird anyways (due to teams wanting our younger catchers more than Laird)
Btw, if anyone wants an interesting read, go read the comments over on ESPN on the trade. Just golden…
In Smoak We Trust
by Smoak Some on Dec 8, 2008 1:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
this is true..
The return on Laird was quite sufficient. Not only do teams covet our younger catchers over him but he has a repuation with some teams as not being all that great to throw to. You can’t really have expected much more than we got.
Meanwhile Blue Bell stock is plummeting! Do they not have Blue Bell in Detroit?
"The Gerald Laird trade is a GREAT SUCCESS! Who'd we get for him again?"
Tom Hicks
by LAMuscleFag on Dec 8, 2008 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
most of the comments here
seem to indicate that we got a decent deal, but only if you consider the backlog of catchers and the team’s need to move one of them. But I thought the conventional wisdom was that the catching stockpile was supposed to work in the Rangers favor, not the other way around.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
by tricer on Dec 8, 2008 1:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It has worked in their favor.
They traded the least valuable catcher they had, got two high ceiling arms in return, and still have 3 starting catchers with loads of potential. To me that seems a textbook example of why stockpiling catchers can work in your favor.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused
How is moving Laird for two young, cheap arms a bad thing? I think, in the state of the game right now, we got a pretty good haul for a guy who is about to get expensive. If we were trying to go to the World Series this year, maybe Laird would have been our guy. In all actuality though, Laird wasn’t going to be around when we start to compete… and either of these two pitchers may be.
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
by trident on Dec 8, 2008 2:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The stockpile of catchers helps
when you are able to get them for cheap. Did we overpay for any of the catchers we got? We got one for half a season of Lofton, one as part of a huge package for Tex (that I would take now even without Salty in it), one was drafted in the third round, and one we got for Venafro and Pena. Look at what we gave up and what we got in return in the end, and that is why you can afford to not to get a huge steal on any catcher trade.
Plus, the one piece we traded so far was the one that was supposed to get us the least in return.
BTW, I understand what you have been trying to do, but it gets kind of old. I don’t know why you feel the need to be so against the notion of stockpiling catchers, but you are really exaggerating your point here by a lot.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Dec 8, 2008 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
Sorry to get under your skin, guess I have that affect on several here. I’m not necessarily against the notion of stockpiling catchers, I’m just trying to point out that there are other ways of looking at the situation. I don’t really think the catcher stockpile has worked out in our favor. Sorry that is apparently an unpopular opinion.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
by tricer on Dec 8, 2008 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't understand how its bad
It might not be as good as some might hope it will turn out to be, but I just don’t see any real negatives.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Dec 8, 2008 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't trade Laird...
…unless there are options behind him. The whole reason you can move him is because there is a stockpile of catchers behind him. Otherwise, you are dealing him just to open up a hole that needs to be filled.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 8, 2008 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think Detroit could turn around and trade Laird
for more than they gave us for him?
I think probably so, and the reason is because our depth at the position forced our hand, and put us in a position where we almost had to take a return that seems to be considerably less than what a generic starting catcher on the market would typically fetch.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
by tricer on Dec 8, 2008 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Markets are fluid
You seem to be assuming that there is some sort of standard return for a starting catcher. There are more catchers available than any time in the last several years. It’s unfortunate that the logjam of ML-ready talent occured when it did, but that certainly does not prove that stockpiling catchers is a bad idea.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think stockpiling catchers is a bad idea
but I also never thought that it was a great idea either, and most everybody else around here seemed to think it was just genius.
Don't believe the hype about sloppy seconds. They ain't bad.
by tricer on Dec 8, 2008 2:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's compromise
and say it’s prudent.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 8, 2008 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Who wants Laird
now that essentially his only suitor has him? Cincy isn’t giving you Homer, or that deal would have gone down by now, right? Florida is looking to salary dump, NYY are usually a day late and a dollar short on the trade market, Boston wants/needs a longer-term solution…
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
by trident on Dec 8, 2008 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
x
Do you think Detroit could turn around and trade Laird for more than they gave us for him?
No.
by Adam J. Morris on Dec 8, 2008 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure you can.
Laird is a fairly generic catcher, only marginally better than the Rod Barajas’ of the world who float around all the time. You could have traded Laird at any time, and replaced him with a AAAA catch and throw catcher, and not taken a huge hit in the catching department.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Dec 8, 2008 4:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Melo and Perez
Do you guys think Melo can blow up into the scene like Martin Perez did? Both are very young, Melo has a better WHIP, K/9, BB/9, and BAA. Perez has the better ERA.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 8, 2008 2:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
subscriber only
or free content?
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
by trident on Dec 8, 2008 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Grading Scale
It’s interesting to see the range of takes on the trade. Could I modestly propose the grading scale (just mho for deals)?
A+ Kidnapping of the century
A Grand theft with immediate impact for the Rangers
A- Grand theft with great promise
B+ Good deal with immediate impact
B Good deal with favorable return
B- Good deal with promise
C+ Good deal with possibly positive return
C Fair deal with good future potential
C- Fair deal for both sides
D+ Give up deal with useful return
D Give up deal with speculative return
D- Give up deal that might have been better
F Any transaction that hurts more than it helps
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 8, 2008 2:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
that is the scale i used for htis trade
and gave it a B. Although I guess it should be more accurately a B-
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Dec 8, 2008 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
I’d still go with B+.
Who thinks Moscoso profiles as a starter, and why?
In other words, how many starting prospects currently in the fold should he beat out?
Granted we have a small sample size on his high-minors work. But those K numbers with control just scream power reliever to me.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Dec 8, 2008 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would change my vote to B-
on this scale… maybe C+. I just worked out a list of recent trades that fit each grade from A+ to C… but somehow it disappeared and I don’t want to type it out again. A+ was the haul we got for Tex, C was Golson for JMJ.
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
by trident on Dec 8, 2008 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't like this scale
Any bad deal is an ‘F’ according to this. That seems weird. That assumes that all trades are a “zero-sum game,” and that if you didnt’ get the strongest return you’ve failed. Not all trades have “winners” and “losers”
I don’t think deals are a contest of “how can I screw over the other guy”. Teams have different holes to fill and different surpluses, and often these are complementary. A Salty for Bowden + Bard trade, for instance, may be a win for the Rangers, because we get a good decent ceiling young pitcher and a good relief prospect – two things that we could use – by giving up a player who we don’t need. But it is also a win from the Red Sox perspective, they get a long-term catcher to replace Varitek, and didn’t really have much use for Bowden other than as a trade chip.
That’d be a solid B or B+ deal to me. For both teams. If we got Buccholz instead, I’d say it’d be an A+ deal for Texas, while a B- or C+ for the Red Sox.
This deal, JD was trying to trade a guy who didn’t have much value to the Rangers yet cost some money. A team was willing to give up two guys who have some promise. That is an A-/B+ deal for the Rangers – Texas is a better organization today than it was yesterday. However, the Tigers are as well – they desperately needed a catcher, and acquired a good one for two guys not named Porcello. Its an A- deal for them too.
by JBImaknee on Dec 8, 2008 4:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Flabbergasted
Did you not read “fair deal” at grade C ? No contest is implied. Very confusing essay. And believe me, it’s pretty hard to earn a F, given that any player moved is considered moveable, and any player coming back has been accepted as a return.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 8, 2008 11:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
we got a guy who has never pitched in America
and 25-year old coming off an injury who has never pitched in the bigs for an above-average everyday catcher
by Stevoo on Dec 8, 2008 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
B+
I think its a good trade for both teams. The Tigers don’t have to break the bank for a starting catcher, and you can never have too many pitching prospects. I’m actually surprised we got as much as we did.
by lildrummerboy on Dec 8, 2008 5:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
C+
I gave it a c+
My thinking was that the traded was good because it solved the catching problem while adding two high upside arms. I would have had a higher grade if JD could have gotten something to help the big club next year along with a high upside player.
BTW…Any chance that the money saved on Laird helps us be active in Free agency? That could be an added + to this deal.
by death of the cool on Dec 8, 2008 5:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If JD were the minor league GM...
it would be a B, because these two would play. But they won’t likely see significant, if any, time with the Rangers.
I’ll agree with many who say it was OK…which means average…which is a C, not a B.
A B? Above-average? Nearly 200 above-averages?
C’mon.
Smile when you call me Beat Weed!
by Clueless on Dec 8, 2008 5:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
In my household
B means “sit in your room in quiet reflection while swallowing guilt as the only dinner”
by Telegraph on Dec 8, 2008 7:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
B
for the pretty solid return
In reference to how good the Steelers have been in their history: "No one is even close to them."- Steal Home
by hinduplaya on Dec 8, 2008 5:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
D as in JDUMB
I graded the Laird trade for the Rangers a D.
The only reason I didn’t vote this trade as a F is hopefully the AA 25 year old Moscoso will maybe just maybe be a major league reliever come 2012. Which I doubt seriously he will be anything but another flop. And this 17 year old Carlos Melo who will be 18 next year. Which I think It’s nearly impossible to project when or IF he will ever see the majors.
This was a irrational, illogical and rather reckless and careless move by JD
It’s obious that Detroit GM Dave Dombrowski got the better deal.
by cowpoke on Dec 8, 2008 10:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I give it a nice, solid A
We got a solid return, plus all the benifits of getting rid of Laird – like the ability to say Buchholz or bust!
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Dec 8, 2008 11:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
A-
I dont understand how people can say you have to get something that helps you now for it to be a good deal. By that logic, the tex deal would be a C+ as well, and anyone with 1/2 a brain will tell you it was an A+. That logic is simply baffling to me.
To the people bashing JD and saying it was a bad trade…Laird sucked…the guys we have behind him are better and the team is now better. Any return we could get for Laird made this trade good in my books
by Horns130 on Dec 9, 2008 1:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Concur...
Your first statement is a great point.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Dec 9, 2008 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Lone Star Ball
Related FanShots on Lone Star Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
