Thoughts on Daniels' best/worst moves as GM

I want to extend my thanks to Adam Morris for posting and responding to my article on Jon Daniels' best and worst moves, three apiece. I find constructive criticism incredibly valuable and I'm the better for it having seen Morris' and the commenters' responses. (And that's not hot air: I see no reason why I would dismiss information or criticism that can only help.)

Morris contends that the Millwood deal was better than I gave it credit for, as I listed the Millwood contract under "dishonorable mention." 

Morris posted a comparison of Millwood's salary along with his dollar value as determined by Fangraphs. While Morris goes through some possible reasons for my ranking of Millwood's deal, he left out a significant reason, and one that influenced my evaluation of the deal. In fact, Morris brings it up himself by contending the fact that Millwood was traded to Baltimore for the final year of the deal -- and it just so happens, the year Millwood was an utter disaster -- makes the deal as a whole encouraging.

While I thought the trade of Millwood was a great move by Daniels, I don't believe he should get credit for that when evaluating the contract as a whole. That deal was still signed by Daniels, and he certainly couldn't have predicted four years earlier that he would get to schlep Millwood off on the Orioles. Thus, while the dealing of Millwood should be considered among Daniels' better moves, the overall contract should all be credited to to Daniels.

Morris goes on to evaluate my own evaluation of the Alfonso Soriano trade as one of his worst. The most important thing to remember here is that hindsight is 20/20, which Morris touches upon when he defends the acquisition of Brad Wilkerson. Actually, I was one of those people that liked Wilkerson a lot. (Wilkerson would later go on to join the Red Sox much to my delight, but didn't pan out.) I didn't think he was better than Soriano, but I was a fan. But does that still justify the outcome? As much as I/others liked Wilkerson, he still failed. And while not all failures are the fault of the GM, there is still some culpability to be had in acquiring a player who did not pan out. At the time, the Soriano trade was a little light, but as Morris covers, the market for Soriano was simply not there. So while it may have been light, it certainly wasn't viewed as terrible. But should you evaluate moves based on information at the time, or the outcome? You have to balance both, but GMs are hired and fired based on production -- just like baseball players, and Daniels produced a poor trade here.

By the way, Morris wonders if my BoSox roots (shill time: Fire Brand of the American League is a Red Sox blog I have been running since Dec. 31, 2003) had any impact on judging the Eric Gagne trade as one of the best deals Daniels has made. I can assure you that my allegiance to the Red Sox had no impact on that evaluation. Gagne was nothing short of brutal, but the Rangers got one of the best fourth outfielders in the game, a hit-or-miss Dominican prospect that has hit so far, and even Kason Gabbard outproduced Gagne according to WAR. Looking at what Texas coughed up and received, that was a fantastic trade.

I believe Daniels is one of the better GMs in the league. Back when he started, working under Tom Hicks and above Buck Showalter is certainly no picnic for any GM, let alone a 28-year-old in his first year on the job. Most importantly, however, none of these bad deals have strangled the club financially or on the field. He's been able to push forward. To his credit, he's really evolved into a fantastic GM.

Thanks again to Adam and the readers for reading and responding to the article, and I hope you join me over at CBS Sports' Eye on Baseball when you need a baseball fix to go along with your Rangers fix.

Evan