On Miguel Cabrera, Johan Santana, and Texas

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 6:03 PM CST in News

Jon Heyman has an item up about the Angels' pursuit of Miguel Cabrera, and the Marlins' demands.

The Angels apparently offered Howie Kendrick, Jeff Mathis, either Nick Adenhart or Ervin Santana, and a "mid-level" prospect for Cabrera. The Marlins came back asking for both Adenhart and Santana (supposedly at the request of owner Jeff Lorie), which has stalemated talks.

The Rangers have supposedly been talking to Florida as well, according to Heyman...and realistically, the Rangers could match what the Marlins are asking for from Anaheim.

Ian Kinsler, Gerald Laird, and two out of Brandon McCarthy, Eric Hurley, and Edinson Volquez gets you about equal to the package requested from the Angels. The issue then, of course, is whether you think you could sign Cabrera long-term, since you don't want to give up a package like that for a guy who you'll only have for 2 years when (everyone all together now) the team is in rebuilding mode.

Along the same lines, the Rangers could trump the offers from Boston and New York for Johan Santana, if they wished (and they've supposedly been talking to the Twins, as well)...

Boston is offering Jacoby Ellsbury or Jon Lester, but not both, along with Jed Lowrie and a prospect (and are willing to kick in Coco Crisp if the Twins take Lester instead of Ellsbury). New York supposedly is offer Philip Hughes, Melky Cabrera, and a prospect (but not Alan Horne, Ian Kennedy, or Austin Jackson).

Now, if the Rangers were so inclined, they could offer Kinsler, and two guys from a mix of McCarthy, Hurley, Volquez, and C.J. Wilson. Conceivably, you could also kick in an Engel Beltre or a Kasey Kiker, to sweeten the pot.

Again, though, the question is whether it makes sense to give up that much talent for Santana, along with whether Santana would waive his no-trade clause to come to Texas, and how much Texas would have to pony up to get him to agree to an extension.

But the pieces are there to make a deal.

Tweet Comment 81 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

AJM

I have a quesiton. You say two from McCarthy, Hurley, Volquez, and C.J. Wilson.

Does the baseball world view CJ Wilson as an equal with McCarthy, Hurley and Volquez? Do they view him as a starter? I'm confused about CJ Wilson I guess. Does he have a perceived high ceiling like the other three?

Why can't we be friends?

by Agreen07 on Dec 2, 2007 5:57 PM CST reply actions

C.J. Wilson

Some people value him highly.

I don't know who of that group Florida would want. But they are going to want good, major league ready pitching, and I think those 4 are the ones who would interest Florida the most.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 6:12 PM CST up reply actions

Adam

Would you do that deal for Santana if the Rangers could lock him up on a 5 year extension?

Catch a Tiger by it's tail and slam it down!Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Dec 2, 2007 6:15 PM CST up reply actions

5 years...

...including 2008 (he's already under contract for 2008)?

Or a 5 year extension?

And for how much?

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 6:17 PM CST up reply actions

Including 2008

for I don't know about $20M per year.

Catch a Tiger by it's tail and slam it down!Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Dec 2, 2007 6:19 PM CST up reply actions

I hear he wants a

6 year 150 m extension.

Why can't we be friends?

by Agreen07 on Dec 2, 2007 6:53 PM CST up reply actions

CJ Wilson

I would say CJ Wilson might be a good fit in the Marlins system.
He's said in his blog he enjoys the NL Rules, and in college he played on the field as well as being a pitcher...
i might be completely wrong here...but it seems to me that the Marlins might value him higher than other teams in that aspect.
i'm no expert though.

"Pitchers, like poets, are born not made." -- Cy Young

by Sobetan610 on Dec 2, 2007 10:05 PM CST up reply actions

Sound analysis

Good introspection.

T.R. -- enough is enough.

by inactive lsb user on Dec 3, 2007 11:59 AM CST up reply actions

yup

no biases at all ;)

by ab03 on Dec 3, 2007 12:07 PM CST up reply actions

heh

personally i wouldn't like to see CJ traded...
but yeah

"Pitchers, like poets, are born not made." -- Cy Young

by Sobetan610 on Dec 3, 2007 4:51 PM CST up reply actions

I think

this has to do with Duran, if they think he's ready, I think they'll try to acquire Santana. Cabrera, i don't think they'd be willing to give up the pitching needed to complete the deal. And if they do, they won't be able to justify trading pitching for hitting, even thought they need a big bat in the lineup.

Fire Todd Dodge.

by sprite on Dec 2, 2007 6:03 PM CST reply actions

Why even make a trade?

We are so far off from being contenders that making a trade for either man is just plain stupid. We need all the young guys we can get. We need Kinsler and Duran in the same lineup, also all the guys listed above. I could see if we were contenders and had a good chance to make a playoff run, then yeah, go ahead. Make trades to upgrade a weak area. But right now, our system is not ready. Too many holes and unknown.

"I'd need a picture of Jamey with a shotgun saying "This is my Boomstick!" before I could see that one." DJCahill

by NYTXFAN on Dec 2, 2007 6:27 PM CST reply actions

+1

We need to develop the kids we have. Lets get good then start making trades down the road, when players may actually want to stick around.

Put Mayberry Jr. back at First Base.

by Jukebox Joe on Dec 2, 2007 7:17 PM CST up reply actions

Blalock

why wouldn't Blalock be included in either on of these deals? The twins need a third basemen badly and the Marlins would need a replacement. Would he lower the price on either deal?

by meatbonelefty on Dec 2, 2007 6:33 PM CST reply actions

Blalock

I don't think he'd have much value right now, because of his injury last year, and struggles the previous couple of years (although he actually hit pretty well in 2007).

Besides, Minnesota is likely going to have Brendan Harris or Nick Punto at 3B, especially if they got Kinsler.

And the Marlins didn't want Blalock and his salary 2 years ago...they certainly won't now...

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 6:39 PM CST up reply actions

Nick Punto sucks

by Brett Perryman on Dec 2, 2007 6:41 PM CST up reply actions

and b/c

Hank is gonna EXPLODE in 2008.

by SteveP on Dec 3, 2007 12:14 PM CST up reply actions

Or better yet....

If you can get Santana for Kinsler, Volquez, CJ, and Botts while signing a 5 year contract after this year. They had a backup DH so maybe Botts can be a low enough prospect to where they accept as the 4th guy.

If we can get D. Willis for Salty, Davis, and gabbard.

I know we're giving up A LOT of prospects but I think we just solidify our rotation for years to come. We also get to keep our best pitching prospects.

Our rotation:

Santana
D. Willis
Millwood
BMac
Padilla

Our top 10 prospects that we'd have left are:

Hurley
Andrus
Kiker
Teag
Main
Beaven
Duran
Beltre
Max Ramirez
Poveda

Our weakness is C, 1B, 2B, OF

Andrus and Duran are SS & 2B prospects and one of them can be the future to take Kinsler's spot or if Andrus is the real deal and better defensive SS. We can hopefully move Young back to 2B.

C we have Teag and we can keep Laird.

1B is still a weakness (Davis could've helped in the future).

OF is still a weakness but we didn't trade any OF prospects so we're still in the same situation.

Would you do these trades and are they real options?????

by Coolbean04 on Dec 2, 2007 6:41 PM CST reply actions

Dontrelle Willis

Hell no. Particularly not for Saltalamacchia and Davis.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 6:45 PM CST up reply actions

+1

T.R. -- enough is enough.

by inactive lsb user on Dec 2, 2007 6:47 PM CST up reply actions

well

i wouldnt' mind grabbing him, but only if we got a discount based on what he showed last year. your package is not a discount

by ab03 on Dec 2, 2007 6:48 PM CST up reply actions

Well he's only 25

so he's still very young. He has been great and this past year was a down year from them. All you hear is how our guys had down years (ex. Millwood, Laird, and etc.) and how we all expect improvements next year. Why can't we think the same for Willis?

Now....

If that's too much for Willis, obviously it would be better to get him for less. Now my question is. What type of package would it take to get him and would we do it?

by Coolbean04 on Dec 2, 2007 6:49 PM CST up reply actions

I've got no interest in Willis

A lot of innings at an early age. Shaky, declining peripherals. Problems with his mechanics.

He's a free agent after 2009, and I wouldn't want to commit to a long-term deal for him right now, which means you'd be trading him expecting to win in the next two years.

Doesn't make sense.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 6:52 PM CST up reply actions

i don't understand...

...isn't 2010 our "target" year?

i mean... wouldn't it be harder to compete in 2010 if we start trading off all the talent we just acquired last summer?

you seem to have all the right answers, morris...

please, enlighten me...

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 7:00 PM CST up reply actions

Huh?

You don't understand why I wouldn't want to trade for Willis?

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 7:07 PM CST up reply actions

no, fool...

...i'm speaking in general.

what's the purpose of this diary? there's no point in trading for santana or cabrera... so why talk about it?

it's like you're saying... "hey! our weeny is just as big as the sox and yanks..."

please... the objective this team set in motion last summer was to begin building from within. stick the course.

after all... our "target" year is still a year or two off.

daniels needs to glue his telephone to the receiver. we have all of '08 to start evaluating the new/next crop.

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 7:34 PM CST up reply actions

Well...

what's the purpose of this diary?

To talk about something I thought was interesting.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 2, 2007 7:36 PM CST up reply actions

it isn't interesting...

... it's depressing...

do we really need cabrera? i don't think so. and we're pretty much screwed out of the johan sweepstakes if he goes to boston or new york...

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 7:48 PM CST up reply actions

It is interesting

There is nothing else going on and this is a baseball story that relates to the Rangers in the national media on a small scale.

You are right we don't need anything the Rangers are a great team that has just come off winning 5 WS in a row.

If there is a player out there that can make the Rangers a better team now and in the next few years when they are competing I want JD to explore all options.

I don't know about you but I'm tired of losing year in and year out and speaking as a season ticket holder it is rough to go out to every game and think man wait until next year.

I'm not saying the Rangers should get Cabera or Santana just explore the options and if the price is right go for it.

Catch a Tiger by it's tail and slam it down!Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Dec 2, 2007 8:02 PM CST up reply actions

dude...

...i'm sick of the losing too...

but, john hart ultimately ruined this team, and before last year, jon daniels had done little to fix it...

here's the reality of the situation... it's going to take an impossible return to land santana or cabrera... and SHOULD it happen... you're now short two or three young arms and a position player here or there.

and while we might have plenty of depth in the infield and at catcher... you can never... NEVER... have too much pitching...

the best that you can hope for is that johan santana pitches his last game in '08 in twinkie pinstripes and that tom hicks offers him a 7-year contract for $175 million next november.

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 8:29 PM CST up reply actions

Well you and I can agree

About what John Hart did here.

I never said trade for Santana I just said you have to explore it. I do think JD has the Rangers on the right path.

Catch a Tiger by it's tail and slam it down!Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Dec 2, 2007 8:42 PM CST up reply actions

Not my call

But I wouldn't get him at any price. I'd even suggest he peaked at 22 and won't get better, plus moving from the NL to the AL seems to have a brutal effect on K/change pitchers.

'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern

by Ed Coffin on Dec 2, 2007 6:54 PM CST up reply actions

i dont think santana is realistic

i cant see a circumstance where he signs long term to be on a questionable team in a hitters park.

and does he have a no trade clause? i know he wants out of minny, but to go to a contender.. not a team that won 75 games.

cabrera you would have for two years and could probably get a big chunk of your value back at the deadline in a year and a half if things arnt working out and you cant sign him, so hes pretty interesting. seems strange to trade away tex and then get the same situation back 6 months later though.

although i suppose if we give up less for cabrera then we got for tex, youve made a nice net gain.

by DShep on Dec 2, 2007 6:53 PM CST reply actions

agree

"i cant see a circumstance where he signs long term to be on a questionable team in a hitters park."

I concur. Any trade for Santana would need to be made contingent on him signing a long-term extension with Texas. But, barring the Rangers throwing an A-Rod type contract at him or something, why does anyone think Santana would agree to sign away his free agency years to pitch for Texas when he's never lived in the area, doesn't know his teammates, the manager or the front office, and would be playing in a hitter's park for a team with no history of success? Why would he do that? Would you if you were Santana?

by Brian Hayes on Dec 3, 2007 9:48 AM CST up reply actions

Stay The Course

No trades.

by 3Bagger on Dec 2, 2007 7:29 PM CST reply actions

the course

might include trading for a young part that (through extension) you might be able to control for a really long time.

by ab03 on Dec 2, 2007 7:34 PM CST up reply actions

Right

You at least want to keep that option open.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 2, 2007 7:57 PM CST up reply actions

Patience

That could be fine. But, the trade proposals I'm reading all over LSB right now include all sorts of players. McCarthy, CJ, Blalock, Salty, I mean, come on? Why not sit tight, throw all these people against the wall and see who sticks?

Patience is boring, but it is a virtue.

by 3Bagger on Dec 3, 2007 8:21 AM CST up reply actions

i concur...

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 7:55 PM CST up reply actions

I don't want a trade

that either tries to shortcut things but costs more assets than you get or one that is only for the short term and costs more assets than you get (long term). But to just say "no trades" seems foolish.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 2, 2007 8:00 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed 100%

Catch a Tiger by it's tail and slam it down!Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Dec 2, 2007 8:03 PM CST up reply actions

No Trades EVER AGAIN

Okay, that's dramatic. But, we're too early in this process to know exactly who's WHO? So why package 4 of our players for pricey Vets now? I say Hell No. Sit tight and keep developing.

JD has added tremendous depth, but the real gems may surprise us all, they usually do.

Many times in investing (and trading) the best deals are the ones you don't make.

by 3Bagger on Dec 3, 2007 8:17 AM CST up reply actions

That talk

makes sharky so excited, he'll probably toss your salad.

"LSB: accept the losing" - Sharky

by DJCahill on Dec 3, 2007 9:03 AM CST up reply actions

No thanks...

the price is getting to high for Johan. Perhaps I over-value the Rangers prospects but this team is not a ace away from being in the playoffs, I would like to see this through and see what happens with MOST of these kids. I would not rule out all trades, the Rangers do have some stregnths to deal from...just not right now imo.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Dec 2, 2007 8:44 PM CST reply actions

Cabrera/Santana

I'd be real inclined to get in on Cabrera. I can't imagine Santana would waive his no-trade clause to play for the Rangers.

I think the Marlins would prefer to have Wilson and Hurley as the pitching component. McCarthy and Volquez are probably viewed as flawed by other organizations at this point.

by Randy Richardson on Dec 2, 2007 8:47 PM CST reply actions

worth trying

I'm glad the Rangers are looking into these possibilities. Sure, it might be a long shot to land either one, and it would be expensive. But either one of those guys would make the team better right now and for several years to come. That is, (the big if) if we can resign/extend them. That's the biggest risk in all this, imo.

by lexrob on Dec 2, 2007 8:49 PM CST reply actions

the only way...

... santana extends as a ranger is if the team goes on a miraculous '08 run... which would include...

either winning the wild-card, or the AL west...

winning three division series games... which we've never done...

... then taking the ALCS to game 6...

(shakes head)

the only way santana ends up in Ranger blue is next fall when Tommy Boy offers him a contract more lucrative than A-Rod's...

will Prick Hicks even get a chance to negotiate?... that's the question...

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 8:59 PM CST up reply actions

Santana

I believe all the trades being discussed now are contingent on Santana agreeing to an extension with the acquiring team.

by Randy Richardson on Dec 2, 2007 9:06 PM CST up reply actions

is that a fact?

... last i checked, Santana wanted out of a floundering baseball team...

by oc on Dec 2, 2007 9:14 PM CST up reply actions

Santana

"Santana has a full no-trade clause, which could potentially wrench any deal, and it is anticipated the two-time AL Cy Young Award winner would ask for a six- or seven-year contract -- potentially ranging into the $25-million-per-season range -- in order to waive those rights and join a new club."

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071130&content_id=2314759&vkey=hotstove2007&fe xt=.jsp

by Randy Richardson on Dec 2, 2007 9:41 PM CST up reply actions

thought exercise

People are getting strangely upset at this diary. I thought it was an interesting one, just because it illustrates the depth of the Ranger's farm system. In the past the Rangers would not have even been able to consider trading for a Johan Santana or a Miguel Cabrera, or if they did, it would leave the club with a minor league system that was decimated. Now, the Rangers are able to at least participate in these types of discussions. I don't think Adam is say that these trades should be made, but was just making the point that the Rangers' impressive list of prospects is illustrated by the team's ability to match the best offers of the Angels or the Yankees. That is a happy thought.

But that river of tears has dried for all of us.

by trza on Dec 2, 2007 10:37 PM CST reply actions

i agree

maybe it means the rangers won't be perpetual crap anymore :D

"Pitchers, like poets, are born not made." -- Cy Young

by Sobetan610 on Dec 2, 2007 10:38 PM CST up reply actions

Concur...

besides it's impossible to fly without thinking happy thoughts first, right Peter?

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Dec 2, 2007 10:40 PM CST up reply actions

No

and No. To me both of those deals are like offering 252 million to ARod.

Cabrera has the potential to be a cancer in any locker room.

Santana is going to want to test free agency.

You are giving up a lot with very guaranteed. A good team is equal to the sum of its parts, not the value of its best player.

Ephesians 1:3-10

by kwellborn on Dec 2, 2007 10:41 PM CST reply actions

Cancer

This phrase has really taken on a life.

I was wondering who you think is more cancerous though, ARod or Cabrera? Feel free to project 5+ years out for either, assuming that cancer grows ...

T.R. -- enough is enough.

by inactive lsb user on Dec 2, 2007 10:48 PM CST up reply actions

cancer

why?

by ab03 on Dec 2, 2007 10:52 PM CST up reply actions

cabrera

Why do you think Cabrera would be a clubhouse cancer? I've never picked up on that from him, but maybe I missed something.

by lexrob on Dec 2, 2007 11:10 PM CST up reply actions

Not at all.

He was a key character when they won their championship in 2003. Not a cancer.

by miles on Dec 3, 2007 12:02 AM CST up reply actions

Am I the only one

who believe that Minnesota should keep Santana and try to win with him? Call me crazy.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Dec 2, 2007 11:01 PM CST reply actions

Okay, Crazy :)

Actually I heard one report suggest that it all depends on Liriano.

If they think he can come all the way back at or before mid-season, they have a shot to win it all with him and Johan anchoring the top of the rotation.

If it looks like it's gonna have to wait until '08 (or, you know, NEVER) for Liriano to come all the way back, they might as well trade Johan while the trading is good since they probably won't have a realistic shot at winning it all this year.

Dwyade once challenged God to a game of 1-on-1, only to realize that not even God can play 1-on-1 against Himself.

by thedirkatron on Dec 3, 2007 12:27 AM CST up reply actions

the reports on Liriano

all seem to be good, but their bigger problem for a couple years has been not enough bats. I guess if I was their GM and had some of these trade packages dangling in front of me I'd have to consider it.

Tomorrow Never Knows

by t ball on Dec 3, 2007 11:26 AM CST up reply actions

Bedard Has No Interest In Extension With O's?

that's the player we should target. Bedard or possibly Kazmir. Extend Bedard 5 (more) years for 80-85MM. That's a front of the rotation guy who can win here. Trade them Volquez, Salty, and Arias. If it takes Hurley instead, do it.

by HaegerChamp on Dec 2, 2007 11:39 PM CST reply actions

What are you smoking?

Ian Kinsler, Gerald Laird, and two out of Brandon McCarthy, Eric Hurley, and Edinson Volquez

vs.

Howie Kendrick, Jeff Mathis, either Nick Adenhart or Ervin Santana

Kendrick's ceiling is much higher than Kinsler. Kendrick has been hampered by freak injuries and is still a year younger than Kinsler. Laird will be in his 5th season...2 years from being arbitration eligible. Mathis hasn't even played a full season yet and is 4 years younger than Laird.

by akathelorax @ Lone Star Ball on Dec 2, 2007 11:51 PM CST reply actions

It's weird.

You make a good point, about Laird not really being equivalent to Mathis, but then you're just slightly off on a few too many things that it seems to skew your argument.

-Laird is 3 years away from free agency (he has 3+ years of service time) instead of 2 years.

-Mathis is 5 years away from free agency (he just accumulated > 1 years worth last year, though he is a small amount above 1 year, though Laird is the same for 3 years).

-Mathis is 3 1/2 years younger than Laird and if you measure by age as of June 30th (which is how you typically measure major league age seasons), he's actually only "three" years younger than Laird.

I agree that Mathis is significantly better than Laird, but the small errors in your favor make your argument seem not as strong.

JMO,
Req

by Requiem on Dec 3, 2007 2:22 AM CST up reply actions

OT...

anyone thinking we should go after Peavy because the Pads won't re-sign him...apparently they are close to an extension thru 2012. Another true ace off the market, although I don't really know if he was ever on it to begin with.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Dec 3, 2007 12:29 AM CST reply actions

Nevermind Johan Santana

If you put any stock in this, then the debate was fun while it lasted...

"UPDATE, 12-3-07 at 12:02am: Not only will Johan veto any midseason deal, he'll veto any deal to a team other than the Yankees or Red Sox."

by subsidiarity on Dec 3, 2007 1:11 AM CST reply actions

told ya

by DShep on Dec 3, 2007 5:21 AM CST up reply actions

Sorry, that was MLB Trade Rumors,

for what it's worth.

by subsidiarity on Dec 3, 2007 1:13 AM CST reply actions

Both?

This is a fun exercise but let's take it one step further. Could we get both?

Let's say we offer McCarthy, Wilson, Kiker, Andrus, and Kinsler for Santana. Then we offer Salty, Hurley, Volquez for MCab. Would that be enough assuming Santana vetos his no trade clause and re-signs a long term deal?

If so, the Rangers would be in win now mode and would probably over pay for Rowand and Fukudome. Arias at second and Laird at catcher would be the only holes in the lineup as far as I can see.

Pure fantasy of course, but hey, a man can dream can't he.

Derek

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Dec 3, 2007 7:21 AM CST reply actions

Note

I'm assuming you put MCab at first and keep Botts at DH. Botts could also be another hole if he doesn't pan out.

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Dec 3, 2007 7:22 AM CST up reply actions

cabrera deal

is lacking a lot

by ab03 on Dec 3, 2007 8:30 AM CST up reply actions

maybe not a lot

but it is not enough

by ab03 on Dec 3, 2007 8:30 AM CST up reply actions

MCAB

Yeah you're right, you'd have to put in Engel Beltre or something like that. In the abstract, it comes down to trading Kinsler, Salty, McCarthy and Wilson plus 4 or 5 of your top prospects to get both.

Even then it might not be possible. If it was, I actually would do both deals even though it destroys the farm system. Prospects are a means to an end and if we can get 2 all-stars and lock them up for years to come, then I would do it. I'm tired of losing.

Again this is pure fantasy but it does show how far our farm system has come.

Derek

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Dec 3, 2007 9:15 AM CST up reply actions

If you can sign to a long-term deal

I've never understood why this is thought to be a possible deciding factor in a trade. If you can sign Cabrera to a long-term deal, it will be for market value or close to it, so why is that considered a benefit? Let's be generous and say he will give you a discount of $2 million a year for 5 years, now you are trading something like Kinsler, Laird, McCarthy and Hurley for 2 arb years of Cabrera + $10 million discount on the new contract. I might do Kinsler and one of the other 3 for that, but all 4 guys, no way.

by mikedallas23 @ Lone Star Ball on Dec 3, 2007 8:58 AM CST reply actions

Santana & Cabrera

I disagree with the notion that the Rangers could trump the offers from NY and Boston. The Rangers farm is built on depth and at this point isn't filled with names like Hughes or Buckholz. Even if we offered Kinsler, McCarthy, Hurley and Andrus, is that really better than offering a true top of the rotation starter like Hughes and a young CF with upside like Melky? Not in my opinion.

The Ranger do not have the can't miss, blue-chip, star prospects that most teams require when they trade away their best players. Perhaps I am overvaluing a player like Hughes but top of the rotation starters aren't made available very often. Question: If Hughes and Melky were offered for Tex, would you rather have that package or the package of players from ATL?

"On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

by jparks77 on Dec 3, 2007 9:22 AM CST reply actions

I think your assessment is dead on

We have a lot of guys who might be something, but we really don't have a lot of front line guys folks drool over.

I doubt we have lots of top 50 minor leaguers, but I think we have quite a few 50-200 guys.

"LSB: accept the losing" - Sharky

by DJCahill on Dec 3, 2007 9:31 AM CST up reply actions

Santana agreeing to a long-term extension

Why does anyone think Santana would agree to sign a long-term extension with Texas right now?

by Brian Hayes on Dec 3, 2007 9:50 AM CST reply actions

He wouldn't

If you were prone to the long-ball would you want to pitch your home games in Texas? Nope.

"On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

by jparks77 on Dec 3, 2007 9:56 AM CST up reply actions

not to mention...

...the fact that he doesn't know any of the guys who would be his teammates, doesn't know the manager or the front office personnel, and has presumably never stepped foot in the Metroplex except during road trips with the Twins.

by Brian Hayes on Dec 3, 2007 10:02 AM CST up reply actions

Contract

And given how often pitchers arms go boom, why does anyone think Santana signing a long-term deal with Texas is automatically a good thing? I like their current approach, load up on high-ceiling young arms in the draft and figure that you will hit on a few of them. If one of them goes up in flames then it isn't catastrophic.

by mikedallas23 @ Lone Star Ball on Dec 3, 2007 9:58 AM CST up reply actions