Jacque Jones designated for assignment

by Adam J. Morris on May 5, 2008 4:50 PM CDT Comment 38 comments

The Tigers have designated Jacque Jones for assignment.

He's been terrible this year. The Tiggers have called up Matt Joyce to replace him, although I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a long-term solution or not. Marcus Thames is Jones' platoon partner, and Thames has been pretty bad this season, as well.

It makes me wonder if the Tigers might not be interested in Marlon Byrd, once Byrd is ready to fly again.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Meh

Would they give Galarraga?

by brettgardner on May 5, 2008 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't they just use Inge out there?

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 5, 2008 4:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As was lightly discussed in the John Mayberry Jr. thread

what about Milton Bradley? He is playing really well for us right now, but I wouldn’t mind trading him to the Tigers. Would they take him?

by geetar85 on May 5, 2008 5:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I really hope the Rangers shop Bradley.

But, honestly, if we could get a good deal for Byrd, I’d rather keep Bradley for something better.

You’re right, though. No reason to not trade Bradley, just depends on what the Rangers can get for who.

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ya I think you are right.

Bradley seems like an ideal player for a contending team this year. I would love to have him stay on our team, the problem is, just as I said, he is ideal for a ‘contending’ team, so it might be a while!

I think somebody will give up some quality players for his bat down the stretch.

by geetar85 on May 5, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, what a wonderful idea

lets see how really bad we can make this team be, maybe even break the franchise record for losses in a season of 106 set in 1963, and at the same time set a new record for low attendance.

by SanDiegoKev on May 5, 2008 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This team’s record will depend on pitching and defense. Bradley is good but I don’t think trading him is going to cause us to drop ten games from whatever our record will be. Besides, unless they plan to re-sign him long term, which is no sure investment, then trading him, hopefully for a pitcher at AA is a very good thing for this franchise. We’re building for 09, 10, and 2011 not five plus games to our record this year.

by Hull Fan on May 5, 2008 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Everything you said is 100% correct. And even if somehow losing Bradley did cause us to lose 10 more games, if we get a good young player in return, who the hell cares?

We aren’t going anywhere this season.

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

unfortunately and for some reason...

the only person who cares about plus or minus 5 or 10 games this season seems to be Hicks and Nolan…

.500 or bust!

Bad Vibes Kill Rallies!

"Well, we are one of the cheapest teams in Major League Baseball"
-Tom Hicks 4/8/2008

by Jayslick on May 5, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wash too...

by cmkelly29 on May 5, 2008 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're not going anywhere this season.

So why not see what we can get for a 30 year old whose trade value will likely never be higher since he’s overachieving, and will be a free agent at the end of the season.

Milton Bradley isn’t taking the Rangers anywhere this season. Prospects we could get for him could take us somewhere in the future. I don’t understand the concept of pursuing mediocrity in the present at the expense of the future.

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

The future of this outfield is two of Boggs, Mayberry, and Cruz. I like Bradley. He’s preformed way above my expectations but I don’t think this team really competes till 2010. In which case Bradley will be two years older and probably even more injury prone. We’re investing in our youth and if Bradley can be dealt for a return somewhere between what we got for Lofton and Gange last year. Trading him is a no brainer. Especially if he can be turned into a pitching prospect or a 3rd baseman.

by Hull Fan on May 5, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It will NOT be Cruz.

by venturafearsnolan on May 5, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree strongly

About Cruz, but that’s a whole separate topic. With the Tiggers current situation, maybe Cruz would be more attractive to them than the misguided sour taste he’s left here? He’s more an enigma than Byrd, maybe less merchantable, but does have the glamorous AAA and offshore numbers.

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

by Ed Coffin on May 5, 2008 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's just plain stupid...

besides if there’s a team that will lose 100 games this year it may be your precious CY’s Pads.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on May 5, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure with your management

losing 107 games could be achieved with some effort, trade bradley, millwood, padella, and who knows, I think the Pads will improve, their track record is much better then this team’s, compare them if you would over the last 5 years, there is no comparison otherwise..lol..your too funny!!!

by SanDiegoKev on May 5, 2008 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheffield is playing LF now

probably not fo long, I’d imagine.

by cmkelly29 on May 5, 2008 5:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I want to see Byrd traded just for "Rangers flip the Byrd" headlines. :D

by Inkara1 on May 5, 2008 5:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ha. Or perhaps

“Rangers give Tigers the Byrd”.

There is no such thing as global warming. David Murphy was cold, so he turned the sun up.

by SarasotaRanger on May 5, 2008 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reminds me of years ago

when Bartolo Colon threw a complete game shutout, and the ESPN headline read

“Rangers whiff at Colon”

Genius.

by FuturePants on May 6, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be awesome.

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 5:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Send them Byrd...

Cat and Broussard for Galarraga and Freddy Guzman!

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on May 5, 2008 5:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on May 5, 2008 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't tease me like this.

I’d rather see Byrd traded now because I think you could get a better return on Bradley closer to the deadline. Boggs deserves a continued look and I’d really like to see Cruz be given another shot, maybe after the ASB for the remainder of the season. Regardless Byrd’s days in Texas are hopefully numbered.

by Hull Fan on May 5, 2008 6:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why not Cruz?

I don’t know what kind of deal you can get for Byrd or Cruz but I would imagine Cruz’s torrid start could garner a decent package also freeing up a spot permanently in OKC for JMJ.

by bigsteve on May 5, 2008 6:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Cruz

Any team could have claimed him off waivers before the season. I don’t think any GMs will be fooled by his AAA numbers.

by Randy Richardson on May 5, 2008 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

If every GM were as enchanted by AAA numbers as members of this blog are, we’d be in great shape trade wise.

by venturafearsnolan on May 5, 2008 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To claim him when he was waived

A team would have to make a spot for him. At that time, it wasn’t a great idea for those who “might” have wanted him.

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

by Ed Coffin on May 5, 2008 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not ready to give up on Cruz.

Cruz could still turn into something for this franchise. Byrd can’t. Nor do I think, with the play of Murphy, Cruz, Mayberry, and Boggs that Bradley is the necessity that he once was. Trading the two guys who probably won’t be here next year is the logical choice. Especially if they can get something of value for Bradley. Right now I’d take almost anything for Bryd to be gone.

by Hull Fan on May 5, 2008 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, I think we could keep saying "why not [anyone]."

You know, as long as they’re not a part of the Rangers future.

I think the reason he suggested Byrd is because Byrd is someone he wants to see gone more than the others.

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely understand that

Im not at all trying to pump up Byrd or anything. I don’t think either of them are part of our future. And if Cruz hadn’t gotten off to the start he has I probably wouldn’t be saying this. But I don’t think its too far fetched to think Cruz could garner us a better prospect(s) than Byrd would.

by bigsteve on May 5, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by philkid3 on May 5, 2008 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Byrd

I’d be great with trading him. Given his limited tenure with the Rangers, I keep forgetting he’s already 30 and is a little older than Milton. I’m fine with trading either/both. On the one hand, Milton’s having the better season, is a better player, and could get us more towards the deadline. On the other, he has had some injuries in the past so maybe trade him now when he’s healthy. I really like Uncle Milt (don’t know why I call him that, just looks like one) but if we can trade him to a contender, it’s good for the Rangers and good for him.

What happened to my old signature?

by WyoRanger on May 5, 2008 7:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Byrd should be traded or cut, one of the two

He has done next to nothing this season, so I don’t think he has much trade value right now, but whatever you can get for him is fine with me. The real value in trading Byrd would be allowing Brandon Boggs to play, and maybe opening up a last chance for Nelson Cruz to make an impression.

I’m just not expecting much, if anything in return for Byrd, though – we missed out on the real chance to get something of value for Byrd this spring < cough >Matt Murton< cough >.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 5, 2008 8:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

Although I can’t say I’m too broken up about the lack of a Matt Murton deal … I bet J.D. would’ve pounced on it if he thought Murton was worth anything. I’d rather see Boggs get PT than Byrd and Murton.

by MeanMr.Mustard on May 5, 2008 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Murton isn't much...

in terms of value right now. Look at his AAA numbers. 13 hits, all singles and not doing much with the Cubs in a very limited role. I would rather see Boggs and even Cruz get playing time rather than trading for Murton right now. Try and get an A/AA pitcher or somone like that for Byrd.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on May 5, 2008 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs