Daniels has done wonders with one-year deals

Now that the season has progressed and nears its completion, it seems like a good opportunity to review a midseason rave from DMN writer and underappreciated DMN blog contributor Tim MacMahon.

Tim usually has a lot of negative things to say about the Rangers, but I refer back to one of his more glowing posts about JD's prowess with one year deals - turning something into nothing...

Strangely absent is any reference to Jason Jennings - a COMPLETE failure by JD.

Touted prematurely as a "success story" was the signing of Ponson.

Bradley flamed out sometime after this was written May 20th, contributing very little when the Rangers needed July/August momentum.  IF Daniels had an opportunity to move Bradley and didn't then it was another failure, but if there were no offers then it was probably a good signing although Bradley ultimately failed to see his maximum potential despite a great start to the season.

The Lofton year was great for the future of the franchise.

I dissent from MacMahon and question what Sammy Sosa provided this team during his one year.

Gagne was a great move even though Gabbard is, in retrospect, another waste.  Murphy hopefully continues to overachieve.

Low risk/high rewards or just a couple of good moves with a healthy dose of crap littering the list of one year signings?

Also, since at least half of the one year signings have been busts, the "low risk" component is actually double for the signings that worked out, right?

In other words, if Bradley was considered a success at $5M (don't know any of the salaries off the top of my head and won't look), you also needs to add salaries of Jennings, Broussard and Ponson to that amount to determine total amount risked versus what was received (high reward).  This year the Rangers spent several million on one year contracts and got Bradley.  Risk versus reward, good or very average?