New Year's Eve stuff

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 12:21 PM CST in News

Once again, almost nothing out there this morning...

T.R. Sullivan has some questions up on his blog, including asking if folks would be on board with a hypothetical trade of Hank Blalock for Chris Capuano...

I wouldn't do that, personally...Capuano is a nice innings-eater who had two solid years before struggling in 2007, but he'll be 30 in August and is homer-prone.

Personally, I'd wait and see if Blalock can be healthy and productive in the first part of 2008, and then, if the team is out of the race, see what offers are out there. I'm betting that you'll be able to get a lot more from him then than now...

There's also the issue that dealing Blalock means you have to go find someone to play third base in 2008, unless you want to just punt and run Ramon Vazquez or Travis Metcalf out there every day...

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Blalock for Capuano

I wouldn't do it at this point.

You could simply sign Jason Jennings, who's probably as good as Capuano, and keep Blalock.

I don't really think Blalock is worth what he'll make in 2008, but it's too late to go get another 3B and payroll shouldn't be an issue this year in any event.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 31, 2007 12:20 PM CST reply actions

Blalock...

will easily be worth the 5.95 million he'll get in 2008.

by Redcaps on Jan 1, 2008 11:17 AM CST up reply actions

Question

If Blalock is traded, can the new team exercise his team option for 2009? And I don't think Hank's contract is particularly onerous. I agree that the Rangers would be better off getting a Jennings-type rental and trade Blalock for a decent package of prospects.

"When I was a pup, we got spanked by presidents 'til the cows came home! Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions!" LBrooks

by WyoRanger on Dec 31, 2007 12:34 PM CST reply actions

Yes

If Blalock is traded, can the new team exercise his team option for 2009?

Yes. Which is what makes him an attractive trade target, if he's healthy and productive in 2008...

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 12:42 PM CST up reply actions

The option

Is only valuable if you believe he'll be worth $6.2 million in 2009.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 31, 2007 12:59 PM CST up reply actions

$6.2 million in 2009

The chances are pretty good he'll be worth that.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 1:04 PM CST up reply actions

Well....

That depends on whether you put more weight in his 1,200 ABs in 2005 and 2006 or his 200 ABs in 2007.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 31, 2007 2:51 PM CST up reply actions

In the current market

that's reasonable even if he only manages an ops of about .775.

Cranberry Sauce

by t ball on Dec 31, 2007 1:17 PM CST up reply actions

look at what Torii Hunter made

and blalocks still in his mid 20's

by slash on Jan 1, 2008 7:17 AM CST up reply actions

trading Blalock ?

I don't see the point.

He will be in the middle of his prime during the years that this team should be back in contention. He exhibited the ability to be a difference maker in the big leagues at age 22 and 23. There is no apparent replacement for him in the system. He has publicly stated that he wants to be a Ranger for life and would accept a home town discount.

Trading Blalock just opens up another hole that needs to be filled and pushes back the window of contention another couple of years. If the team is going to be contenders in 2009-2010, then Blalock and Hamilton are likely going to be a couple of the middle lineup cornerstones. I can't really imagine a realistic scenario that would benefit the team by trading away Blalock. Sharky has a point, the team is never going to improve if we insist on trading away every good player that we develop.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 12:43 PM CST reply actions

However....

Blalock is only under team control through 2009, he's not really that good to start with, and Mike Young is most likely going to have to move to 3B at some in the next few years.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 31, 2007 12:57 PM CST up reply actions

not really that good to start with ???

Last couple of seasons have been disappointing but he had a big league OPS of 872 at age 22, then an 855 at age 23. You just can't do that without an assload of natural talent. For comparison Salty had a big league OPS of 732 at age 22.

And if you look at b-ref's most similar batters by age you see that Scott Rolen, Gary Sheffield, and Aramis Ramirez are the best comps. I'd be very, very hesitant to trade away that type of player before he enters his prime, especially for a pile of NL pitching mediocrity like Chris Capuano.

And FWIW, a lot of people that study such things note that 26-27 year old players that have several years of big league experience are the best bets to have a big jump in performance level. Blalock in 08 fits in with that group.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 1:30 PM CST up reply actions

Blalock

In his two most recent complete seasons, he put up a .253 EqA at age 24 and a .241 EqA at age 25. That's not good, particuarly for someone playing on a corner.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 31, 2007 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

agreed, not good the last couple years

But he displayed a ton of hitting ability the 2 years prior. So, I guess the question is whether you believe that talent has completely dried up or not. I think it is reasonable to suggest that some of his problems have been due to approach, and some may have been due to weakness caused by the shoulder injury. Both those problems are correctable, or have already been corrected. To assume that he just isn't good anymore, or that his first two seasons were just good luck seems less logical than the above alternative explanations.

At age 24 and 25, Aramis Ramirez put up OPS+ of 72 and 102. Then when he entered the same age bracket that Blalock will be entering next season, he posted seasons of 138, 135, 126, 129. I just think that age 27 is quite a bit early to give up on someone that has displayed the talent level of Blalock.

I know everybody is pretty excited about Chris Davis right now, but lets remember that the experts probably rate him as a top 50-75 type, while at the same age Blalock was #3 in all of baseball - behind only Josh Beckett and Mark Prior. Giving up on him, or trading him off while his value is at an all time low, just seems like it has the potential to be a horrible, horrible mistake. If the downside of hanging onto Hank too long is missing out on Chris Capuano, that seems like an easy risk to take. Especially compared too trading him off too soon and missing out on a couple of affordable seasons (and possibly a team friendly extension) during his prime.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 3:59 PM CST up reply actions

Blalock

I don't think the chances are great he's going to be willing to sign long-term.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

You mean right now?

Or ever?

"God plays by his own rules, folks. And HGH is f***ing legal as hell up in heaven." -Andy Pettitte

by thedirkatron on Dec 31, 2007 1:19 PM CST up reply actions

why not

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

If nothing else...

...the Boras factor...

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

I've researched this a few weeks back

I remember reading something a year or two ago that said that Blalock had switched to Boras, but I never could find the source of that (one of Jamey's reports??). Cot's lists Eric Goldschmidt as Blalocks agent, and I can't find any verification that this isn't the case. Are you sure that Blalock is represented by Boras?

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 1:33 PM CST up reply actions

Boras

Used to be with Goldschmidt. Now with Boras.

by Jamey Newberg on Dec 31, 2007 3:53 PM CST up reply actions

damn

Well that does change any thoughts of perhaps getting an extension worked out.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 4:02 PM CST up reply actions

Trading blalock

Pushes back the window of contention another couple of years?

Jesus man then how far did the teixeria trade put back that window, the next century?

Losing blalock wont push anything back.

by SaltyGoesYard on Dec 31, 2007 1:12 PM CST up reply actions

Yes, it will

Losing Blalock means that we need to find a third baseman. The free agent list for 3B next offseason is Glaus, Koskie, Greg Norton, and Scott Spiezio. So considering that those guys are either too brittle to play, or just plain suck, that means that we need to pull off some type of trade to fill the void.

So trading Blalock for prospects, then trading prospects for a third baseman to take Blalock's place seems like a pretty inefficient way to improve the team.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 1:38 PM CST up reply actions

Well

You could put Davis or Duran there.

Or move Young to third base in 2009, if you think Arias or Andrus would be ready by 2009.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 2:10 PM CST up reply actions

do you think that any of those 4 players

would have a 2009 (or even 2010) season that would be an upgrade over Blalock?

I don't, and that is why I made the original comment about trading Blalock just pushes back the window of contention a couple of years.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Dec 31, 2007 2:15 PM CST up reply actions

Davis

I think Davis could.

I think that, when you factor in the defensive upgrade at shortstop, Andrus or Arias might.

I think there's also a question of what it will cost to keep Blalock around after 2009, and the related question of what you do with Young if you decide to keep Blalock long-term.

by Adam J. Morris on Dec 31, 2007 2:18 PM CST up reply actions

Well....

The facts are (1) we are stuck with Young, and (2) he's going to have to play somewhere other than SS in the near future.

by Darrell McKown on Dec 31, 2007 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

#2 is an opinion.

by DShep on Jan 1, 2008 2:44 AM CST up reply actions

Are you sure...

that Duran has the arm to play third? Most guys who wind up at second have pretty good quickness and footwork but a weak arm.

As for Davis, I see him more at either first base or corner outfield.

by Redcaps on Jan 1, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah

that is the consensus.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Jan 1, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

I think you're right

I think that wouldn't be enough straight up right now for someone who still has some time remaining, in particular a team option.

The #1 Passive Texas Rangers Fan

by aggierangerfan00 on Dec 31, 2007 12:45 PM CST reply actions

Blalok is gonna bounce back in 08,

my early projection
Average 285
OBP 340
HR 29
RBI 101

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Dec 31, 2007 2:12 PM CST reply actions

Aww c'mon

He'll hit 30 HR but only knock in 99. :)

The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws. ~Rick Wise, 1974

by RangerMad on Dec 31, 2007 10:53 PM CST up reply actions

I think that trade is a terrible idea

If things bounce right, Hank could easily surpass Kinsler and be our best hitter next year.

Plus, obviously, his value could increase exponentially w/ a comeback in 08.

And Capuano is not the sort of pitcher you acquire when you are in rebuilding mode.

Ugh. The idea of that makes me nauseous...

Rex Hudler is in demand as a motivational speaker.

by Brian Thomas on Dec 31, 2007 2:32 PM CST reply actions

Indeed

if Blalock has a hot first half -- something he's certainly done before -- and a team like the Dodgers has crap at 3B, they might be willing to deal some young arm or bat with way more upside than Capuano.

Cranberry Sauce

by t ball on Jan 1, 2008 1:05 PM CST up reply actions