T.R. Sullivan mailbag up

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 30, 2009 4:28 PM CST Comment 32 comments

T.R. Sullivan has a new mailbag column up...

A couple of items that jumped out...someone suggests trading David Murphy and Chris Davis for Curtis Granderson. Of course, that wouldn't get you close to getting a deal done...but then Sullivan suggests that if you are going to pay Granderson the $30 million he's due over the next four years, you'd be better off paying Marlon Byrd. The problem there, of course, is that Granderson is a much better player than Byrd, particularly defensively.

There's also a question about giving up Edwin Jackson, who Sullivan says would cost C.J. Wilson and Nelson Cruz or David Murphy. I wouldn't trade any of those three guys for Jackson straight up, personally. Edwin Jackson isn't that good.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You wouldn't trade David Murphy for Edwin Jackson?

What?

by LiamP on Nov 30, 2009 4:32 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

+1

I think it is pretty crazy that Sullivan lumps together Murphy and Cruz. Murphy was a 1.2 WAR player in 2009. Cruz was a 3.6 WAR player last season.

Nelson Cruz are definitely more valuable than Edwin Jackson in my mind. I’d also not trade Wilson, especially since Wilson is working on a move to the rotation. But David Murphy? I’d take a flier on Jackson for Murphy. Murphy is a platoon/4th outfielder. Jackson might regress, but he was a 3.5 WAR player last year and posted a 4.28 FIP. ZiPS seems somewhat bullish on Jackson (4.28 ERA, 200+ innings projected for 2010).

by Stephen Rushin on Nov 30, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

EDIT

That should read:

Nelson Cruz is definitely more valuable than Edwin Jackson in my mind.

by Stephen Rushin on Nov 30, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Would you trade C.J. Wilson and Cruz/Murphy

Because that was what he said. Not straight up Murphy for Jackson.

"Blister please, with those wings in your spine.
Love to be with a brother of mine.
How he'd love to find your tongue in his teeth,
In a struggle to find secret songs that you keep,
Wrapped in boxes so tight, sounding only at night as you sleep." ~Jeff Mangum; Neutral Milk Hotel

by jdh90 on Nov 30, 2009 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I see he said straight up.

I wonder if he didn’t mean that.

by jdh90 on Nov 30, 2009 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No - "I wouldn't trade any of those three guys for Jackson straight up, personally."

It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops.

by WyoRanger on Nov 30, 2009 5:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Murphy, maybe.

I’d have to think about it, though.

I don’t think Jackson is good.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 30, 2009 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Jackson is good either.

That’s not the point though…he’s undeniably better than Murphy. The only argument for Murphy is that the Rangers could potentially be broke to the point where adding Jackson’s arb salary is infeasible. Even then, it’s a can’t not won’t situation.

by LiamP on Nov 30, 2009 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Jackson v. Murphy

Jackson is under team control for 2 more years, and is looking at a salary of around $5 million in 2010 through arbitration, and $7-8 million in 2011.

This is for a guy who, except for the first half of 2009, has been thoroughly mediocre, and as a flyball RHP, isn’t a good fit in TBIA.

Murphy is under team control for 4 more years, and isn’t even arb-eligible until after the 2010 season.

Even if you consider Jackson to be the better player — which I don’t think is a slam-dunk — the differences in their service time and salaries makes Murphy more valuable.

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 30, 2009 6:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends.

If you think Jackson completely crumbles after Detroit abused the shit out of him last year, then yeah, he’s not worth it. While I do acknowledge the risk and I don’t want any part of him for the price Detroit’s asking, I think he’ll end up somewhere between his 2007/8 years and his 2009 year…so let’s say 2.5 WAR. Assuming David Murphy remains a 1 – 1.5WAR player, then 2 years of Jackson could very well be more valuable than 4 years of Murphy. Also, if Jackson puts up a 2.5 WAR, he’ll easily outperform those salary numbers you’re using. I’m also not sure how important team control is for a platoon/4th OF guy like Murphy.

by LiamP on Dec 1, 2009 12:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Byrd and Granderson

I don’t think TR is choosing Byrd over Granderson. He’s choosing Byrd, Davis, Murphy, and probably a pitching prospect over Granderson, which I agree with.

And I also think he’s probably right about the asking price for Jackson. He never said he would do the deal, and I think most people around baseball recognize that the Tigers are trying to sell high on Jackson.

What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.

by clark on Nov 30, 2009 4:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think you might be undervaluing Granderson

I’d give up Davis, Murphy, and a pitching prospect (anyone other than Feliz or Perez) in a heartbeat for him.

Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"

by tricer on Nov 30, 2009 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd probably go Davis, Murphy, and somebody like Kiker.

But if they wanted somebody like Holland or Hunter then fuck that. No way in hell we’re going to end up with Granderson anyway though, so it doesn’t really matter.

Jimmy Johnson for GM.

by txhc on Nov 30, 2009 5:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldnt

I obviously don’t see a lot of Tigers games, but my friend is a pretty big Tiger fan. He was saying that he got swing-for-the-fence-itis last year. If you can get him to get his approach in order he’s fine. That might be too big of a gamble for the current Rangers.

by UNTJosh on Nov 30, 2009 6:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

doesn’t he have pretty rough splits? I love the tools, but that’s a lot to give up for a guy who hasn’t really realized his potential yet.

What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.

by clark on Nov 30, 2009 5:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he has an MVP caliber season under his belt

7+ WAR a couple years ago.

Favorite bumper sticker of all time, seen on a VW bus:
"Gas, Grass, or Ass. Nobody rides for free"

by tricer on Nov 30, 2009 9:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think its the salary difference

10:$5.5M, 11:$8.25M, 12:$10M, 13:$13M club option ($2M buyout) for Granderson vs a likely 3/18 for Byrd. If there was no prospects involve I’d say the 23 for Granderson is likely a better investment over 18 or so for Byrd for the three years.

Though it does look like Granderson should be a platoon player. I don’t know enough about the Detroit system to know if they would want Borbon in return in a trade for Granderson, but that would also be a name to think about in that type of deal.

What do voluntary mean?

by JKolar on Nov 30, 2009 5:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

JJ Putz

is a pretty interesting name to whom I had not given much thought. I bet he ends up signing with some team for an incentive laden deal with a very low base salary, and that would be ideal for the Rangers.

What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.

by clark on Nov 30, 2009 4:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Second This

I’ve been thinking about how I’d love for the Rangers to sign Putz. However, I’ve heard (sorry, can’t think of where I heard/read this) that he wants to close games. The Rangers can’t agree to this, they probably don’t have the money, nor is their biggest need this offseason.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Nov 30, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I imagine that TR gets tons of trade proposals

It seems like he mines his own inbox for the dumbest, most improbable ones.

That's why they call them business sox

by egriffey on Nov 30, 2009 4:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

some

David Murphy love from AJM

never thought i would see the day.

I LOVE THE RANGERS!!!

by dstar442005 on Nov 30, 2009 6:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly

AJM said twice that he doesn’t think that Edwin Jackson isn’t good. That doesn’t necessarily mean that David Murphy is good.

by WyoRanger on Nov 30, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Edwin Jackson might be the most overvalued pitcher on the market this winter.

I failed my LSB ethics test.

"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS

by lonestarJon on Nov 30, 2009 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Orioles interested in Milly

WTF? We would we move Milly to make room for Dye. That makes no sense.

The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ

by NYTXFAN on Nov 30, 2009 6:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That would kinda suck

Dye is gonna be in his age 36 season next year, and he’s been wildy inconsistent throughout his career in terms of production.

What is it with this team and old washed up/unreliable DH’s?

I failed my LSB ethics test.

"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS

by lonestarJon on Nov 30, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Its called being broke

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Nov 30, 2009 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah we understand that,

but shedding MIlly for Dye is not a good swap out imo.

The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ

by NYTXFAN on Nov 30, 2009 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Being broke is one thing

But moving a pitcher who’s had WAR’s of 2.7, 3.3 and 2.4 over the last three years specifically to go after a hitter whose WAR’s have been -0.7, 1.7 and -0.3 over the same period?

It’s not so much that I’m surprised they’d like to shed Millwood’s salary, it’s who they apparently want to shed it for that troubles me.

I failed my LSB ethics test.

"It's kind of a new stat that's in vogue" - Joe Buck on OPS

by lonestarJon on Nov 30, 2009 7:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't specifically talking about Millwood for Dye

More to your comment about why we are into old washed up/unreliable DHs. Thats all we are gonna be able to afford this winter unless we shed salary. Now if we shed Millwood we better get something better than Dye in exchange whether that be directly in the deal or if we use the freed up money to sign someone else

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Nov 30, 2009 9:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dye

might get a $4-5M deal in this market, tops. There are two many old DH/1B types out there for him to have much value. If that’s what it would take, then, for the sake of argument, we trade Millwood for someone like Ty Wigginton, a solid RH utility type who will make 3.5M this year, and some marginal prospect like Eddie Gamboa. That’s a savings of $8.5M that we could then give to Dye (let’s say $5M) and put the other $3.5 to arb raises or a pitcher who happens to fall into the January bargain bin.

And who knows, maybe we can get more than that for Millwood. I just don’t have much faith in him this year.

What is this, Horseville? Because I'm surrounded by naysayers.

by clark on Nov 30, 2009 8:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs