What's the worst trade?

by trza on Sep 24, 2006 3:34 AM CDT Comment 30 comments

Ok, which trade was worse:

Sori for Wilk, Sledge, Galaragga

Young, Gonzalez, Termel Sledge for Eaton, Otsuka, and random catching prospect.

You are encouraged to support your answer with some evidence.

Although I much preferred the Soriano trade when it went down, in retrospect it seems like a much worse trade with the benefit of hindsight. Soriano could have been a difference maker for this team. It's a tough call, however, given how useless our starting pitching has been behind Millwood and Padilla. Anyway, curious to hear some thoughts...

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

LSB

Most people will say the latter but clearly, it's the former.

I mean Sori is 40/40/40. That tells me that's a ton of extra base hits.

by Sharky on Sep 24, 2006 4:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The title of the diary...

is worst trade and you don't bring up Juan Gone? Are you feeling okay, Sharky?

by benmor78 on Sep 24, 2006 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sori trade

most people will say the young deal, but this team needed aki this season, and what they also needed was another solid bat, which is what soriano was....however, it only would have worked had someone forced him to leftfield.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Sep 24, 2006 7:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sori

We got negative production this year from Wilkerson.

This team would've been royally screwed without Aki.

"If you are going to type stupid shit, you should at least spell it right." -trza

by thedirkatron on Sep 24, 2006 8:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Soriano for Millwood

Does the acquisition of Millwood not factor into your analysis of that trade? Do you really think that Hicks would have paid for both Soriano and Millwood?

by mjh on Sep 24, 2006 8:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

also

Would Soriano have moved off second to accomodate Kinsler?

Washington already had an All-Star second baseman in Jose Vidro, and as the new guy, he didn't have the clubhouse clout he may have had in Texas. I don't think he would have been too keen on doing Kinsler any favors, and I certainly don't think Hicks would have called Soriano's bluff the way Bowden did when Soriano threatened to sit out.

Frankly, I expect Soriano to return to Earth and become an overpaid hacker again, while Kinsler will provide better bang for buck over the next 3-5 years.

by Ian Cobb on Sep 24, 2006 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No.

Yes.

by Longhorn on Sep 24, 2006 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No question

It was the San Diego trade.

Personally, I think trades should only be graded on the day they are made based on the value of the players involved right then. Too many times a guy will be included in a trade and then turn into something good later down the line. A good example of this is Sammy Sosa. People bemoan that trade but forget that he was traded another time before he started producing and didn't really start playing at an All-Star level until he had been gone from Texas for at least 6 years.

Soriano did not play extremely well when he was here and I think the fact that they couldn't get anything for him at the deadline last year is an indication of what his value was to other teams. The fact that the Rangers got as much as they did for him was amazing. Wilkerson played like crap and got hurt and Soriano played better than he ever has in his life. To think both of those things would happen is not realistic.

For years fans and media have bitched because the Rangers can't develop any pitching and especially guys who can pitch well in Arlington. The Rangers finally do both things with Chris Young and they ship him out. And for what? A very good relief pitcher and mediocre, injury prone scrub of a starting pitcher. Worse yet, they threw in their best position prospect on top of it. And please spare me the "AGon didn't have a place to play" crap. That is no reason to just give away talent. I am not saying he shouldn't have ever been traded but it should have been for more than what they got in return.

by Chris Martin on Sep 24, 2006 10:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes and No

I agree with you (sort of) that trades should be graded based on the players value at the time of the trade.

However, I think the point of this post wasn't to ask which trade WAS worse, it was which trade turned out worse.

I loved the Soriano trade at the time it was made, but it didn't turn out well at all. But I don't blame JD for it in the slightest, cause I think that at the time of the trade he did a good job of getting value for Soriano.

"If you are going to type stupid shit, you should at least spell it right." -trza

by thedirkatron on Sep 24, 2006 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The San Diego trade

If we had this year, the team would have been better, but not 10 games better.

And at the end of this season, he'd be gone and the Rangers would get draft picks for him.

As it is, they still have Wilkerson (who I think is a good bet to bounce back next year) and Galarraga.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that, most likely, either Padilla or Millwood wouldn't have been signed if Soriano had been here.

On the other hand, if the Rangers had not made the Padres trade, there would be a hole in the bullpen, but the Rangers would have had a terrific 1-2-3 this year in Millwood, Padilla and Young, and a productive DH in Gonzalez.

And who knows...with a hole in the pen, maybe Buck would have been forced to "trust" Fabio Castro, and thus the Rangers would have realized he could hold his own on the majors, and not ended up having to trade him away.

So yeah, if I could reverse one of those deals, it would be the San Diego one, no question.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 24, 2006 10:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep

It was bad. Really bad.

by mjh on Sep 24, 2006 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, but.....

I agree that the San Diego trade is the worse of the two.

However, for everyone saying that if the Soriano deal hadn't been made, most likely Millwood or Padilla wouldn't be here, there is another possible outcome in that scenario -- the San Diego trade wouldn't have been made.

by BurntOrange on Sep 24, 2006 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wilkerson

will be crap next year.

Baseball wives are leeches. ... They're just hookers on retainer. -- Rangerchick

by DJCahill on Sep 24, 2006 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't we get Padilla in a trade ?

by tklawless on Sep 25, 2006 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For...

Ricardo Rodriguez. Or a half-eaten bologna sandwich, I can't remember.

by benmor78 on Sep 25, 2006 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rationalizing!!!

Anybody who says the Rangers couldn't have player A unless they trade player B so because we got player C, D, E, and F and then traded all them to get player G who is a borderline ML player then it was a great trade is just rationalizing. Sorry trades are sorry trades no matter how subsequent maneuvers work out or whether or not the team allegedly spent the salary on a nice pitcher or not. I think it is false logic of the highest degree and only used by people who are into self-deception. The Rangers don't trade well, have never traded well, and probably never will. Any time this franchise makes a trade I cringe. Any time this player sends one of their non-prospects down the road I cringe. And usually with good reason.

by gp on Sep 24, 2006 12:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

that's awesome.

by Longhorn on Sep 24, 2006 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was stupid

So if they trade player A to free up $7 million in salary room, then use it to sign player B, you should ignore the impact of player B in evaluating the trade?

That's stupid.

by BurntOrange on Sep 24, 2006 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

supposed to read

Any time this team sends one of their non-prospects down the road I cringe.

by gp on Sep 24, 2006 12:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Soriano for Wifferson

nuf said.

one day people you will realize this is important stuff. until then just keep being worthless

by Andrew F Medina on Sep 24, 2006 3:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The worst trade was Grady Fuson for Daniels!

Wharter

by Wharter on Sep 24, 2006 4:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

x

Young for Loaiza.

by mdickson on Sep 24, 2006 4:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i don't think

you can completely judge the san diego deal until we see if eaton resigns and for what price. considering young is putting up these numbers in a very weak national league in a pitchers park i'm not sure how impressive his numbers are. i admit i thought the soriano deal was a good one when it happened, but looking back on it it might have been better to just let him have his contract year here and get the draft pick if he walks. most people say he wouldn't have moved to the outfield for us, but we never took it that far. he wasn't exactly willing to for washington either, until they pretty much said you aren't going to get your dineiro unless you move.

by selppuc on Sep 24, 2006 8:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I take no

Pleasure nor any satisfaction from facing the rear of the bus and criticizing the tire tracks.

Every trade made was made with good intent and a clear degree of risk.

Bad judgment? Bad luck? Bad karma? Unexpectedly good results at the other end?

Seems to me that's what you get when Joe Btszsflk is around. Until John Hart is no longer paid money by the Texas Rangers, we are damned, haunted, bedeviled, bedraggled, and generally outcasts from success.

/<sardonic view>

by Ed Coffin on Sep 24, 2006 10:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why John Hart?

"Until John Hart is no longer paid money by the Texas Rangers, we are damned, haunted, bedeviled, bedraggled, and generally outcasts from success."

Why? This team was damned, haunted, bedeviled, bedraggled, and generally outcasts before John Hart, they'll be damned, haunted, bedeviled, bedgraggled, and generally outcasts long after John Hart.

*EVERY* team in the American League except Tampa Bay has won at least one playoff series since the Rangers came to Arlington. Joe Burke, Dan O'Brien, Eddie Robinson, Joe Klein, Tom Grieve, Doug Melvin, John Hart, and now Jon Daniels. None of them have done anything to show that this franchise is anything but damned, haunted, bedeviled, bedraggled, and generally oucasts.

by jtts on Sep 25, 2006 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not trying to

tout Melvin's greatness or anything, but at least he got us there a few times, and at least Grieve's players contributed heavily to that. At this point, as futile as the franchise has been, those two belong a little higher on the hierarchy than the others to me.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 25, 2006 2:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grieve's great acquisitions

and a craptastic AL West, and Melvin lucky to be at the right place at the right time got us to where we were. The '77 Rangers were probably as good as those playoff teams, but instead of the craptastic mid-late 90s AL West, they had the '77 Royals in division.

I think Melvin was very mediocre, but, if you inherit good enough players, and are in a weak enough division, then a mediocre GM can take you to the playoffs, and then you can get spanked by a really good team.

Baseball wives are leeches. ... They're just hookers on retainer. -- Rangerchick

by DJCahill on Sep 25, 2006 5:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if the Ranger's had moved.............

Tex & Soriano to the outfield ? Everybody bitches about Sori not wanting to move, but what about the golden boy ? How would this line-up look:

GM,Jr.
M Young
Soriano
Tex
AGon
DeRo (maybe DelGado)
Hank
Laird
Kinsler

by tklawless on Sep 25, 2006 8:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Just to add.......

Sori......46 HR's.....95 RBI
AGon......24 HR's.....79 RBI
Delgado....38 HR's....110 RBI

by tklawless on Sep 25, 2006 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

At the time

The Young trade was clearly the worst of the two. The Rangers someone who compared to Young, a setup man and lost a decent bat. The setup man was to fill in for Frankie, but it's not impossible to find a setup man from within. No one was positive that Eaton would be reinjured, but it was a possibility. I think it comes down to A-Gon. Everyone knew that the Nevin experiment wasn't working, and having A-Gon around would have been very nice.

Soriano was a terrible fielding 2B. He didn't get on base enough to be at the top of the order, really didn't have enough pop to be in the middle, and would have been wildly overpaid to be hitting at the bottom of the lineup. He had to go.

Knowing what we know now, the picture is a little less clear. Say only the Soriano trade had been made, the Rangers would have Millwood, Padilla and Young, a closer who would have blown numerous games before maybe figuring it out (Coco's been pretty good in the NL), Adrian would be DHing, and I think the Rangers have a few more wins. If only the Young trade was made, Young and Padilla would be the only clear starters, 3-5 rotation is still a mess, Soriano would be booting balls at 2nd but he would be mashing in the 3-5 hole. No Wilk disaster at leadoff. But no Kinsler and DeRosa wouldn't have had the year he had because Kinsler wouldn't have gone down. Instead, it would be a steady diet of Laynce Nix. I don't know that Soriano's offense would outweigh the craptitude of Nix and the loss of DeRosa and Ian's seasons.

Fire Buck, DFA everyone, burn down the stadium.

by WyoRanger on Sep 25, 2006 11:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs