Armando Galaragga....
by slash on Apr 21, 2008 6:09 PM CDT
Email
Printis doing great, he's 2-0 and today he went 6 innings 0 ER and 4-5 K's
what a bad move, we could've really used him right now....of course this had to happen....and Volquez will win the NL Cy Young, even if he does I'd still do that trade though, just too bad we couldn't of traded someone else, In retrospect i might've even rather traded Hurley considering how well Volquez is doing and he has a higher ceiling
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What's more perturbing about the Galarraga trade than anything else
...is that Texas released Michael Hernandez, the outfield prospect they received in exchange for Galarraga, shortly after the deal was consummated.
so???
just because it’s a small sample size, does that mean we shouldv’e done what we done? i’m not saying he’s a stud, but we still couldv’e used him, eccspecially since we just basically released him
let it even out.
who took his spot on the 40 man?
by knockoutking on Apr 21, 2008 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions
you have to admit it's almost funny
that we pick up a pitcher off the waiver wire and he throws up possibly the worst efforts in the ML so far, and at the same time, we release a pitcher and he starts out with 13 innings of 1 run ball.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
it can/should be argued
that they picked him up off the waiver wire
by knockoutking on Apr 21, 2008 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions
you're missing the point
we DFA’d Galarraga. Gave him up for nothing. Even if he becomes a decent ML Pitcher, then our DFA then trade to detroit is considered a terrible move. Don’t be so blind.
Of course, this is only two games. But in those 2 games he has 12 IP and 4 hits against.
Wait 'til the year after next
The most impressive stat of this small sample
RHH are 0-21 against AG.
"Hmn [sic] ... pehaps [sic] I've said too much..." - LSJesus
by inactive lsb user on Apr 22, 2008 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Really?
I heard that stat and thought, “that’s not going to continue.”
by Randy Richardson on Apr 22, 2008 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course
but it’s pretty impressive, still, isn’t it?
"Hmn [sic] ... pehaps [sic] I've said too much..." - LSJesus
by inactive lsb user on Apr 22, 2008 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions
watching Danks and Galarraga
seemingly develop into good ML pitchers is MUCH more frustrating to me than getting swept in Boston.
Losing a series just means that things are bad right now.
Watching this management team give away young pitching for absolutely freaking nothing means that things likely aren’t getting any better any time soon.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
We gave away Danks for freaking nothing?
Rex Hudler is in demand as a motivational speaker.
by Brian Thomas on Apr 21, 2008 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah pretty much
I wasn’t very impressed w/ McCarthy, even before this latest injury.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
Well
It may very well turn out that Danks is better than McCarthy-perhaps even significantly better-but I don’t think that it follows that McCarthy is a bad player or “nothing”.
msh-speak aside, they had similar-ish seasons last year, and they’ve not been on equal footing this season.
Of course, if the argument is that BMac can’t stay healthy long enough to prove what he is one way or the other, then that’s slightly more compelling.
I’m just not so sure that if we had drafted and developed McCarthy and sent him packing to Chicago for John Danks that everybody here wouldn’t have the exact opposite feelings. Yes, I know one’s a lefty and from Texas, but objectively, people were higher on McCarthy than on Danks before the trade.
by brettgardner on Apr 21, 2008 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions
puke
"Hmn [sic] ... pehaps [sic] I've said too much..." - LSJesus
by inactive lsb user on Apr 21, 2008 6:46 PM CDT reply actions
Do we
Have to start a post every time he plays and/or plays well? Danks and Volquez too, for that matter? You could easily make the point elsewhere, not that it hasn’t already been made to the point of nausea.
It does nee to be brough up
These wins and numbers that these pitchers are putting up for other teams would look nice in our very own boxscore. Their successes are our losses.
Small sample?? I wouldn’t mind a little bit of small sample numbers like that right now from a few of our players.
People bashed this move when it happened, so it should be expected that when he does well there are going to be some I told ya so’s.
Yes, but this is the 3rd diary in a week about Gallaraga
Rex Hudler is in demand as a motivational speaker.
by Brian Thomas on Apr 21, 2008 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Question
Do you really believe, if he were in the Rangers organization right now, he’d be pitching in the majors?
Good question
I actually just erased that portion of my post up above. I was stating that we don’t know if he would be pitching for our big league team and if he was, we don’t know that his numbers would be what they are right now. But isn’t that the problem, that we don’t know because we gave up on him?
his credentials
are every bit as strong as Luis Mendoza.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
shrug
Okay. The organization liked Mendoza more. If Galarraga was still here, it wouldn’t impact Mendoza’s being in the rotation right now.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 21, 2008 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions
The organization...
seems to be cementing a reputation for liking crappy pitchers better than good ones.
...they liked Eaton better than Chris Young
...they liked McCarthy better than Danks
...they liked Gabbard better than Bowden
...they liked Mendoza better than Galaragga
...they liked Franklyn German better than FX2 and Littleton
...they liked Nippert better than Tejeda
I know it is very early and I’m knee jerking a bit, maybe one or two of those evaluations might turn out to be right, but I just don’t see any reason to have confidence that it will turn out that way.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
I'm unfamiliar
With the Gabbard for Bowden one.
by brettgardner on Apr 21, 2008 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions
BA reported
that Texas had a choice of the two in the Gagne deal and choose Gabbard.
It was months ago and I don’t have a link handy.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
Ah
Well, I’m not sure that they didn’t make the better choice there. As you noted, it’s still early for a few of those comparisons, but I’m not sure I wouldn’t rather take a guaranteed 4th starter that you can plug right in (albeit an injury-prone one) versus a “maybe” guy who projects well, but is still a bit off.
by brettgardner on Apr 21, 2008 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions
if the team is truly rebuilding
I’d think you’d take the higher upside, especially w/ Gabbard’s injury history.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
Normally
I’d agree, but at some point, you’ve got to put in major-league pieces. Rebuilding, as a concept, is only meaningful if there’s a logical end—which would presumably be winning. While I would not argue that this team is so close as to forgo high-ceiling young players, it is undeniably fools’ gold to always be chasing the young, high-upside pitcher, or any player for that matter, because of the extraordinarily high rate of washout.
by brettgardner on Apr 21, 2008 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Choices
I don’t recall the details (if they are all even known) but perhaps Boston would have been less willing to throw in Beltre if other pieces weren’t the same?
Whatever gets you through the night, 'salright, 'salright.
Good point.
"Hmn [sic] ... pehaps [sic] I've said too much..." - LSJesus
by inactive lsb user on Apr 21, 2008 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Gagne trade was
amazing. how do you get 3 players for Gagne. 2 of which are playing for us now, and the third is considered the best of the 3.
Wait 'til the year after next
And even if
Bowden turns out way better than Gabbard, and even if it’s true that they could have had Bowden, there is just no way in hell you can complain about that trade. That trade was a slam dunk, and complaining about it is like winning the lottery and complaining that the prize wasn’t bigger.
Whatever gets you through the night, 'salright, 'salright.
I don't think anyone was complaining
about that trade.
My complaint is that the organization has an extremely poor track record in evaluating young pitchers. Bowden-Gabbard is just one of many examples that were listed.
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
you are reaching
especially on the last two. i don’t think they necessarily liked those last two over the others, they made a decision based on all relevant factors – mainly that they could choose those two and still keep the other guys (i guess educated guess with tejeda).
Rare Gnats Sex
can you give examples
that illustrate the Rangers being good at correctly evaluating young pitchers?
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
Kevin Brown??
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
by LSBUser on Apr 22, 2008 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, maybe Tom Grieve correctly evaluated him
Doug Melvin, in maybe his first act as a Ranger GM, decided he wasn’t worth offering arb to, so that wasn’t a correct evaluation.
"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck
Exactly
Having actually watched both games, I’d say that he’s still pretty much like Mendoza or Gabbard to me—good stuff, but always on the precipice of complete meltdown. So far, he’s been good, but why not take a look at the aggregate of Detroit’s starters versus ours? I doubt you’ll find that Galarraga is the difference-maker.
by brettgardner on Apr 21, 2008 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
+ 1
It could be worse, we could still have Whiffy in the lineup:
Whiffy in 2008
.135 BA
.162 Slg.
0 HR
4 RBI
by LAMuscleFag on Apr 22, 2008 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Answer
Probably not because we have to have guys like German and Nippert clogging up the bullpen.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
by LSBUser on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Another answer
It doesn’t matter. He had options.
Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have German and Nippert on the 40-man than Galarraga?
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
by LSBUser on Apr 22, 2008 6:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Galaragga
might very well have an ERA above 5 if he were pitching in the Ranger rotation right now. I think we can all agree that ERA and poor defense are mutually exclusive for the most part. There have been several times this year when a Ranger pitcher has been charged with an earned run that wasn’t necessarily “earned”.
Not to mention how difficult it must be pitch with a steamer in your drawers because the team supporting you scares the dung out of you.
by robert_d_wilfong on Apr 21, 2008 7:34 PM CDT reply actions
he might very well have been a more dependable arm out of the pen than Nippert.
"There's something to be said for just plugging away and not feeling very sorry for yourself.'' - Terry Francona
by oc on Apr 21, 2008 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions
question
can we have one group post of the week
title it “former rangers”
let hurleyhurler post it.
good idea? bad idea?
by knockoutking on Apr 21, 2008 7:59 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I vote
“Sour Milk” for the title. And yes we should have one.
by corbsclinton on Apr 21, 2008 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions
thirded
Rex Hudler is in demand as a motivational speaker.
by Brian Thomas on Apr 21, 2008 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Great idea
At least condense all the bitching and whining to one post.
I’m just as ticked off as anyone about stuff like Chris Young, Danks and Hafner, but I’m tired of talking about it. At some point, you gotta move on.
Even the Armando Gallarraga updates are kind of old already. He’s had two great starts, and we shouldn’t have DFA’d him, it looks like… but call me in another week or two, when D-Train comes off the DL, and lets sum up how Galarraga did. Till then, no more fanposts dedicated to him, please.
For Reference
I did not and do not like the Volquez trade, even though Hamilton is awesome and our best player and I think he’s going to be one of the best players in baseball.
Well
For one, why is that opinion being expressed here?
Second, it makes no sense.
by brettgardner on Apr 21, 2008 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions
¡Vámonos!
"Hmn [sic] ... pehaps [sic] I've said too much..." - LSJesus
by inactive lsb user on Apr 22, 2008 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Haters gotta hate
"For the record, I did not and do not like the Volquez trade, even though Hamilton is awesome and our best player and I think he’s going to be one of the best players in baseball." philikid3
by Brian Thomas on Apr 22, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions
what the hell
that is the worst logic i might have ever seen.
by knockoutking on Apr 22, 2008 1:18 AM CDT up reply actions
unless you think that
volquez will be a better player than hamilton…
by knockoutking on Apr 22, 2008 1:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Volquez vs. Hamilton
It’s pretty simple. I’m not sure where the confusion comes from. I think we need an elite 24 year old pitching prospect more than we need a 27 year old centerfielder (with a history of drug abuse). I think Volquez might be a step behind Hamilton in production for the team, but he’s younger and our time is the future, not now. And we’re not short on position player prospects, we are short on pitching.
From Kevin Goldstein
Forty-eight hours ago, Edinson Volquez would have qualified for this list, and also would have ranked second. While the Rangers were desperate for outfield help, they also have been desperate for pitching (and for a much longer time), and the decision to deal Volquez, who really looked like he had turned a corner during the second half of the season, is a curious one–-as is the decision to trade for Josh Hamilton, who can’t hit lefties.
Pretty much sums up my feelings, plus the age. If they hold up to similarity, we’ve got about 3 years of Hamilton’s prime while Volquez hasn’t hit the beginning of his yet.
The funny thing
About the future is: it’s never quite here yet.
by brettgardner on Apr 22, 2008 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Two General Comments
1. I love all of the trades and deals that have been made by the Rangers, and the proof is in the record.
2. Nearly every sample size in a season is statistically-insignificant. Just because you do or don’t like an argument, the sample size defense is rarely relevant.
I'd rather be Blind, Crippled, & Crazy
We have a large enough sample size
of your comments now, thanks.
Whatever gets you through the night, 'salright, 'salright.
+4
"Hmn [sic] ... pehaps [sic] I've said too much..." - LSJesus
by inactive lsb user on Apr 23, 2008 12:14 AM CDT 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.
