Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Afternoon linkaliciousness

Th_buckykatt_tiny by Adam J. Morris on

A lot of interesting things out there today...

The latest Ask BA has a Rangers mention, in response to a question about why teams follow the draft slotting recommendations...

MLB generated more than $6 billion in revenue last season, and early indications are that baseball will surpass that figure in 2008. The numbers of teams that are truly dependent on the goodwill of the commissioner, which can result in the awarding of discretionary funds or future All-Star Games, isn't anywhere close to the number of the teams that continue to adhere to slotting. MLB can't significantly punish clubs that break from the ranks, yet most of them toe the line. In 2007, the Nationals, Orioles, Rangers, Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees aggressively signed draftees, while the other 24 teams, for the most part, acceded to MLB's wishes.

Keith Law has a chat session up, and says, among other things, the Rangers should call up Nelson Cruz and give him one last look, and that Neftali Feliz has a reliever's delivery and a starter's arsenal...

Jayson Stark's Rumblings and Grumblings revisits various offseason trades, including the Josh Hamilton/Edinson Volquez deal, which seems to be panned because both teams are "disappointing" this season...

Buster Olney runs down players expected to be available via trade this summer, with both Frank Catalanotto and Gerald Laird making this list...I wouldn't be surprised if both of those guys are dealt in July, and I think both will bring a pretty decent return...

Nate Silver takes a look at how PECOTA rates third base prospects, and Chris Davis and Johnny Whittleman are both pretty far down the list, although Silver says he likes Davis more than PECOTA does.

Ken Tremendous hates SportsCenter...

And everyone's favorite ChiSox pitcher, Mark Buehrle, flipped out last night...

 

0 recs | Comment 77 comments | Add your comment

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

I just don't see

how you make room for Cruz, unless someone knocks you over with a trade for Bradley.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 8, 2008 2:41 PM CDT reply reply   0 recs

Is that Good?

Keith Law has a chat session up, and says, ... that Neftali Feliz has a reliever’s delivery and a starter’s arsenal…

That sounds like a good thing to me, I think? But I truly don’t know.

by gr7070 on May 8, 2008 3:13 PM CDT reply reply   0 recs

Question -

What are the “discretionary funds” that can be awarded by Selig? More revenue sharing?

As far as Jayson Stark, he’s right – the Reds and Rangers were WS favorites.

What happened to my old signature?

by WyoRanger on May 8, 2008 3:15 PM CDT reply reply   0 recs

Maybe both Catalanotto and Laird would bring a decent return if packaged together

But by themselves… not so much.

The other 29 teams all seem to consider Laird is a backup catcher, and as such, you’re not gonna find anyone willing to give up much for a backup catcher, unless we’re talking about a contender in desperate need of a catcher due to injury.

As for Catalanotto… he’s Catalanotto. He is what he is, and he doesn’t have much trade value by himself. Agian, there’s probably not too many teams that will be willing to give up much value for a bench bat/backup DH/LF/1B without much sock.

Maybe if we’re lucky, we’ll pull off a deal similar to Lofton/MaxRam for one of those two, but that’s about it.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 8, 2008 3:22 PM CDT reply reply   0 recs

How do you know what the other 29 teams consider Laird?

You should just say “I, LonestarJesus, consider Laird a backup catcher, and, as such, I don’t think he’s going to net much.”

Question: what other catchers are going to be on the market at the trade deadline? I doubt there will be anyone of Laird’s caliber available.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 3:31 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

No, it isn't.

There really hasn’t been a compelling reason to deal Laird before this point. Laird isn’t a free agent or anything, so there’s no time value in dealing him in the offseason. If Daniels couldn’t get equivalent value in the offseason, then it makes plenty of since to hold on to him until July.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 3:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

What exactly has changed between now(or july) and a few months ago?

If there were teams that really wanted laird and viewed him as a starter and made an offer as such, you dont think JD would have traded him? Really?

Come on.

Now, injuries, underperformers and trade line desperate-ness makes july a more likely trade point, but still… there were plenty of analysts saying the rangers would try to trade laird in the offseason, and they probably did try. That hes here would indicate noone felt compelled to offer a whole lot.

Of course, salty is here, which a reliable source told me simply wasnt going to happen anytime soon, so my world is turned upside down. Maybe im confused.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 3:46 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Why should...

JD feel compelled to accept a deal in the offseason that he doesn’t feel makes equivalent value? You’ve said that July is a more likely trade point, do you think that he should have just dealt Laird in the offseason for less, just to make you happy?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 3:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

summary

1) I think JD simply wants starter value for him and would have traded him in the offseason had he been offered such value. Thus why I think him still being here indicates other teams that needed an upgrade wern’t viewing him as worth that kind of trade value. All I said was that it was an indication of how other teams see him,.

2) July is more likely because it may make teams reach and pay starter value for laird, when they wouldnt do so this offseason. If they had, I dont think JD would use laird for half a season and risk injury or a drop in value to hope for a slightly greater trade deadline return.

Not to make me happy =\

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 3:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think...

that a trade not happening in the offseason doesn’t mean other teams don’t view Laird as a starter, any more than a trade not happening for, say, Ian Kinsler doesn’t mean other teams don’t view him as a starter.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 4:03 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

But we arnt TRYING to trade kinsler

we were trying to lock him up long term, and did.

do you think the dozens of newspapers and ranger analysts that thought we would try to trade laird this offseason were just flat out wrong? its not like im the only person on earth who thought/thinks we would/did try to trade laird.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:06 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm saying...

that using “such and such trade did not happen, which means no team thinks so and so is any good” is a ridiculous way to frame an argument.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 4:08 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I said it was an indication of interest in the offseason, and thats all.

does that mean its 100% proof? No, obviously im not in the rangers front office so I dont know for sure. And you sure as hell dont. But its an indication.

Id like to see any other poster on here take the side that keeping him means absolutely nothing about where his trade value was this offseason, and that saying so is ridiculous.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:11 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I didn't say that it...

has absolutely nothing to do with where his trade value was this offseason. But to have traded him this offseason would have been selling at the nadir of his value. It makes no sense. His value now is much higher than it was 6 months ago. You said that the fact that he is still on the team is an indication that the other 29 teams think of him as nothing but a backup. I was merely demonstrating otherwise.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 4:14 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Well, if it doesnt mean nothing, then it means something

Which makes it… an indication!

But no, it wouldnt mean that 29 teams think of him as a backup. It would mean that X ammount of teams that need a new catcher dont think hes worth paying starter price for over just getting various free agents or other trade targets. Aka his trade value.

I realize LSJ said that and I didnt specifically disagree, but yeah, ill say now that thats not necessarily the case.

And why on earth is his value now much higher than it was 6 months ago? Very little has changed. I cant believe that a .710 ops for 5 weeks means that much to a GM. Maybe its a performance that would push a team over the edge to pull the trigger on a trade, but its certainly not some drastic increase.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:23 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

His minor league record...

would seem to indicate last season was an aberration. He’s performing decently for a catcher this season. He doesn’t have a long term contract, so there’s no commitment. Those factors, taken in aggregate, would seem to indicate that his value is much higher now than it would have been 6 months ago.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 4:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Minor league record?

His minor league ops is .754, and he only had one particularly good season.
A .754 minor league ops doesnt indicate that 6 something in the majors is an aberration. .625 v .690 or whatever his major league ops was coming into that season vs 710 so far this year is just typical variance.

And his contract hasnt changed since the offseason. Although i guess now its a month shorter…

His production is improved, but its not like hes doing what geovany soto is or something.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

His contract status...

makes him an attractive option because he’s cheaper than the Jason Kendall’s of the world, which makes him a more attractive trade option, particularly mid-season if you’re looking to replace someone down to injury.

His minor league numbers are not of the Max Ramirez variety, but they indicate better performance than he mustered last season.

His production has improved markedly over last season. He’s basically (so far) an average hitter with some plus defensive abilities.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 4:42 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

?

1) I said it hadnt changed, not that it wasnt an attractive contract. Having not changed means there is no reason to say it has contributed to an increase in value since the offseason. Not to mention paying starting catcher value in prospects/players is a higher price than paying a few million more for jason kendall in the offseason. Obviously now youd have to trade for him though.

2) First of all, his minor league track record has again not changed since the offseason, so again should have made no contribution to an increase in trade value. Second, no, his minor league track record really doesnt indicate much better then what he did last year.

3) Yes so far its improved. A little bit. For 5 weeks. As said I think this would help push through a trade.

So youve got 2 things that havnt changed and a .710 ops for a month. Better, but “would seem to indicate that his value is much higher”? Not really.

And btw, a nice 0 for 10 or something and woops… his numbers are right back to last year. Of course they could also increase a lot, but i wouldnt bet on it.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

We can agree to disagree...

I think his value is higher now than it was in the offseason. I think the contract status does help that value. But, at least you’re acknowledging that 29 teams don’t necessarily think he’s a backup, which was my original point.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 4:53 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

again, i didnt say his contract status is bad for his value

i simply said it hasnt changed, so how on earth can you say its contributed to an INCREASE in value.

but ok, whatever, im bored anyway.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:55 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Well...

I guess we can agree that since Laird wasn’t dealt for starting catcher value in the offseason, if he’s dealt for starting catcher value in July, his value must have increased substantially.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 6:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

or that as i said in like the first reply

that injuries, poor performances and deadline desperate-ness changes the playing field making it more likely.

and seriously, can you not just admit that his track record and contract havnt changed in the last 6 months? its ridiculous.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 7:30 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

and for the record

i do not believe anyone will give us that value for laird. i think we will trade him for something like a pretty decent prospect, but not really “starting catcher” type value. so if we do get that, i will officially be wrong.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 7:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

injuries or not

it would still mean that his value went up

send me nominations for the Hall of the Very Good
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER

by gossamer on May 8, 2008 7:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

well, i guess i made a better argument for his

value going up then ben did then.

i win both sides. yes.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 7:42 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I just don't get the irrational hatred.

It’s like you (and LonestarJesus) want Laird to play badly, and want his trade value to be nothing. I just don’t get it. I’m not the biggest Laird fan, but he’s colorful, and he’s playing fine now. I want him to continue to play well and fetch good value at the trade deadline.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 8:01 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

He said

Absolutely nothing to indicate that.

by brettgardner on May 8, 2008 8:06 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Go play someplace else.

I wasn’t talking to you.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 8:09 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Don't really

Care. I’m not attacking you. This isn’t an AIM session. I made a valid point on a community board.

by brettgardner on May 8, 2008 8:12 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Ben, the only irrational hatred here

Is your hatred of me, and now of Shep, because he has a position similar to mine.

For the record, I don’t want Laird to perform badly, I just think he’s an inferior player compared to the other catching talent we have in the system. Because of that, he needs to be religated to backup, or sent elsewhere. I don’t think his “trade value” should take presidence over the development of Salty or any of our other catchers, for that matter.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 8, 2008 8:14 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

i take offense to that.

I have always given extremely clear and reasoned thoughts on the entire situation and resent the suggestion otherwise. Calling me irrational because I have a different viewpoint and call you out on ridiculous points is.. irrational.

i would LIKE laird as the backup catcher if he would accept the role. i would be fine with him as the starter if we didnt have salty.

He does have solid defense, his offense would be acceptable if i didnt think salty was a better option, and I think he sounds very intelligent in interviews.

The only time ive started to dislike him is with the attitude of his quotes since the salty trade and that he apparently doesnt recognize any of his faults. i dont expect him to want to be a backup and be happy about it, but hes got to be a professional about it. No problems recently at least.

If ive gone too far in any of these arguments its in getting frustrated with some of the ridiculous points youve tried to argue with, not going wild bashing laird.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 8:34 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I don't think I'm making ridiculous...

points. But the, yes, irrational hatred you and Jon show is odd.

The point you were originally defending was that 29 other teams think of Laird as a backup, and yet you are saying my position is ridiculous?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 10:56 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Can you read?

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 9, 2008 10:53 AM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Except that that is not true.

His value has increased since the offseason. Even if YOU don’t believe that a month means something, other GM’s do. Which is why Frank Thomas, Jacques Jones, Brad Wilkerson, and even Jason Botts were all let go by teams. Based on ONE month’s playing time. (and not even that for Botts. for Botts it was about a weeks playing time).

by iblum on May 8, 2008 4:54 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Jacques Jones' ops dropped 250 points.

Lairds went up 85.

and i said it would slightly help his value. i just disagreed that it “significantly increase” his value.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:57 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

not to mention

theres a huge difference between letting go borderline aging players you can replace and giving up significantly more value to acquire someone.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

If the Rangers

are able to land a Maxiiliano level prospect in exchange for Laird or Cat or both, I would be ecstatic. I wouldn’t rule it out.

Cat is a legit major league hitter with a career OPS+ of 110. He has a history of success against RHP and should have value at the deadline despite his defensive shortcomings.

I doubt the 29 other teams all consider Laird to be a back-up catcher. He could bring back a return as well.

Dalton

by jparks77 on May 8, 2008 3:34 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Well, from what I heard

The Yankees, Reds, and Brewers all recently passed on Laird because they did not veiw him as a starter. Like I said, if there is a team out there with an injury, and a desperate need for a catcher at the deadline, that’ll be our best shot to really get something of value – but the fact that the Yankees have decided to go with Jose Molina, instead of trading for our beloved Gerry tells me something.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 8, 2008 3:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

What?

The Yankees have decided to go with Jose Molina because they don’t know the extent of Posada’s injury yet.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on May 8, 2008 3:41 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Do those teams

look like buyers to you? Both teams look like they will be the ones selling off players at the deadline, not trading prospects to acquire major league talent.

Dalton

by jparks77 on May 8, 2008 3:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The Brewers at least

Where expected to be contenders this year. The Reds where pegged as a dark horse before the season. Both put in offers during spring training, and the Reds pursued their offer into the season. Yet Laird is still here.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this, but I just think that if the other 29 teams really saw Laird as a starter, he would not be here right now.

You can have the last word, Jason.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 8, 2008 3:52 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Yeah, there were a few

teams looking for catchers in the offseason. I’d be pretty surprised if we ended up with much for Laird.

"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck

by DJCahill on May 8, 2008 3:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You could be right

Laird could be nothing more than a back-up catcher that doesn’t have much trade value. He certainly hasn’t been exceptional but I don’t think he is as poor you continually suggest that he is. An OPS+ of 96 for a catcher isn’t terrible.

I still think Laird ends up in the NL with a team like the Mets or Phillies. I guess we shall see.

Dalton

by jparks77 on May 8, 2008 4:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Ummmm...

That uber-doctor that Posada met with projected him to be out approximately 6 weeks, give or take a little bit. He’s not expected to be out for the season, and if you look at their numbers, Laird and Molina are very similar. Thus, why would New York give anything worthwhile to make a deal?

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

by SarasotaRanger on May 8, 2008 4:08 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

-3

"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."

- The D-tron

by Chase Irwin on May 8, 2008 3:35 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think the Padres could use laird

Bard is so so, and Barrett is injured most of the time.

by SanDiegoKev on May 8, 2008 5:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I'm sorry...but does anybody

really like SportsCenter? I haven’t watched it in probably a decade…about the time they became generic, over-the-top tv personalities. I would guess most people only watch because there’s no real alternative.

by Apes and Androids on May 8, 2008 3:37 PM CDT reply reply   0 recs

I avoid SC like the plague

I only watch PTI for my daily dose of sports news.

by texasraider on May 8, 2008 3:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I stopped around 1999

I’ll watch baseball tonight if I am bored, but even that has been kind of painful the last few years (home run, home run, boston boston boston NY NY Boston NY home run home run cool catch boston boston Philly (jayson stark) NY)

by JBImaknee on May 8, 2008 4:05 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Espn.com & Hamilton

Speaking of how much Sportscenter and ESPN suck:

There is a new Josh Hamilton article up on espn.com.
Feel-Good Story Met With Hate

It’s almost completely worthless but does manage to call the Rangers “putrid” and proclaim Hamilton to be “quite literally, the only player worth seeing”.

At least Hamilton’s shirt is bad-ass in the picture.

by BAC on May 8, 2008 4:06 PM CDT reply reply   0 recs

In Texas, where the putrid Rangers have one of the worst records in the AL, he is, quite literally, the only player worth seeing.

That is so far from the truth it’s not funny.

The idea of Blalock, Young, Hamilton, Saltalamacchia, Kinsler, and Wilson all making an appearence in one game seems to be pretty watchable to me, and probably most “real” baseball fans.

by cmkelly29 on May 8, 2008 4:12 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

You gotta remember

On planet ESPN, the only teams that are not putrid are the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Angels, and before lately, the Tigers.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 8, 2008 4:14 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Padilla, CJ,

And even “GASP” Sidney Ponson!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

by iblum on May 8, 2008 5:01 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

hah, love the shirt.

i saw the shirt mentioned earlier but hadnt seen a pic.

Gerald Laird is my hero.

by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 4:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

story

That dig at the Rangers was gratuitous, but it was a good article. People who heckle like that have no life.

"You’re the only here who contributes schtick only." - brettgardner

by trza on May 8, 2008 5:06 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Does it matter which?

One of them will end up being the left fielder and the other the forth outfielder/dh. Either way our outfield defense improves as does our offense. Personally I’m rooting for Murphy but if Boggs keeps this up we all win.

by Hull Fan on May 8, 2008 4:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs