Sunday morning stuff

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 11, 2007 10:57 AM CST in News

Pitchers and catchers report this week, and Evan Grant has a preview up, going over the main projects for this spring.

First on the list for Ron Washington is rebuilding the confidence of the team:

A general lack of purpose, direction and belief seemed to permeate the Rangers. So, perhaps more than anything, the Rangers need their players to believe in their manager if they are to contend. To get there, the manager must show he believes in the players.

This seems a little ironic, given how purpose and direction-driven Buck was. But the more I hear and read about what has gone on the last four years, the happier I am that the Rangers changed managers (and I was pretty damn happy about it in the first place).

Grant also says that the biggest problem with the Rangers' rotation the past several years hasn't been at the top of the rotation (although the #1-2 slots haven't been anything great) -- it has been from the gascanning that has occurred in the #3-5 slots. Grant says that the first 3 slots in the rotation this year are set, and Robinson Tejeda would have to have an awful spring to lose the #4 starter job. He pegs Josh Rupe as the favorite for the 5th starter slots.

Kat O'Brien reports on the ongoing efforts to improve the Ranger farm system, and looks at where the strengths are currently (pitching and catching, as most of you probably know).

Gil LeBreton has a column on Michael Young and Mark Teixeira, and Ron Washington's belief that this is their team and their clubhouse, whereas in the past, it has been the manager's team and the manager's clubhouse. LeBreton says that, if Jerry Jones believes that folks walked around on eggshells in the Cowboys clubhouse when Bill Parcells was there, in Texas, players were walking on land mines.

Jim Reeves' Postcards from the Ledge column today includes a few Rangers snippets, including this gem comparing Jon Daniels to John Hart:

The difference in styles between former general manager John Hart and current GM Jon Daniels: "We'd negotiate with ourselves and never do anything," Hicks said.

Ouch. Not the greatest endorsement of the guy that Hicks repeatedly referred to as the smartest man in baseball.

In the New York Post, Joel Sherman includes Akinori Otsuka in his list of players who could be traded. If Eric Gagne is healthy, I expect Otsuka to get dealt...but the question is going to be, does he get dealt in spring training, or do the Rangers wait until later in the season to do a deal?

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My opinion...

on Aki... you wait until later. The end of spring training is when you trim the fat... trading Aki in the spring is like selling the cow in winter. Aki has less value in the spring, and any return is going to be less valuable.

by benmor78 on Feb 11, 2007 11:50 AM CST reply actions

8th inning

Why not just put him back where he's used to it, the 8th, if Gagne is dealing?

It's not nothing to have such strong arms in the late innings, and here I'm thinking of Francisco, too.

Actually I'm probably more psyched about Frank than I am about Gagne... Love that pitcher.

by hightowersmith on Feb 11, 2007 12:43 PM CST up reply actions

Francisco

Frankie Francisco should make Otsuka expendable. The most important reason to trade Otsuka is his declining K's.
2004 - 87
2005 - 60
2006 - 47
Sure you can have success without striking anybody out (see Danny Kolb circa 2004), but your performance can also implode by not striking anybody out (see Danny Kolb circa 2005). Counting on big performances out of a RP who can't strike anybody out is like playing with nitroglycerin. You can coast along just fine, but when things go wrong, they really go wrong. As long as Otsuka can keep it together for half a season, the Rangers can really fleece another team.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Feb 11, 2007 1:56 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed!

Please, Please, Please, Jon, don't trade Aki early.

Edwards-Obama '08

by RangerMoto on Feb 11, 2007 1:17 PM CST up reply actions

is it

an unquestionable theory that trading a player (with the circumstances) such as Aki early is a sin?

I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here, but any number of things could be the case that would make it better for the Rangers to trade him now:

The off-season market demand for good relievers is high. Granted that means his value has been high all off-season, and if they were going to make a pre-Spring Training move, they should have done it by now.
His performance could decline, the longer they wait.
The longer they wait, more relievers will be available and he will be less of a rare commodity
On a similar note, the longer they wait, most teams will have filled up their bullpen, so will be less interested.

Of course, those last two things aren't really relevant if they're considering trading him closer to the deadline. And none of it is relevant if Gagne doesn't perform, so I suppose that is the reason to not trade him early.
But even still, if we want to trade him now, we have a lot of young guys that could be given the chance to close, and one of them could be stellar.

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 11, 2007 2:12 PM CST up reply actions

A Few Thoughts

I think the biggest reason that the Rangers should not trade him early is that they are not sure which player(s) won't live up to their expectations. Is it Sosa, Botts, the 5th starter, Gagné, Wilkerson, or Cruz? Otsuka pitched well as a closer and in the eigth inning, and I don't think you fill find another RP who will have as much perceived value as Otsuka. So a team could acquire somebody like Julian Tavarez, but who would you rather have?

by Excel Hearts Choi on Feb 11, 2007 2:17 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know

who I would want rather than Otsuka, because I honestly don't have a good idea of any individual player out of the 1000s, that are worth his value.
I do agree that he has higher value than just about any available RP, but I have a feeling it will decline. And that we could afford to cash in on his value now.

Of course, if we don't trade him, that's perfectly okay, I expect him to continue being a plus reliever that we can obviously use.

Troy I.

by tdi1985 on Feb 11, 2007 2:22 PM CST up reply actions

Value

There are a few ways to look at value...

Firstly, you can look at statistical value. This is pretty straight forward. I have stated my skepticism due to the declining K rates, but that does not mean he won't be of value.

Secondly, there is value by addition. By this I mean if a team like the BoSox are in need of a closer (by the way, doctors said that Papelbon can't close due to the stress on his shoulder), then adding Otsuka has great value. I does not matter how Otsuka compares to a Billy Wagner or a Mariano Rivera statistically, because these players can not be obtained. Otsuka, on the other hand, can be had.

As the season goes on, teams will start to get serious about making a playoff push. At this point, statistics are only relevant to those players who are being shopped. Otsuka will definately be shopped. And while he won't be on the short list for the Cy Young, I would bet that the only other reliver better than Otsuka (on the trading block) is Chad Cordero. The losers in the Cordero sweepstakes might be willing to overpay.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Feb 11, 2007 2:35 PM CST up reply actions

nice quote by Hicks

very well put.

Towel drills cannot help a pitcher throw a baseball better.

by SteveP on Feb 11, 2007 12:20 PM CST reply actions

Evan

seems to be a little off here. The problem isn't just the back end of the rotation, but the entire rotation. As a matter of fact the 5th spot in the rotation is the only one that finished in the upper part of the league in terms of starters ERA:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-good-is-your-4-starter/

#1 - 28th
#2 - 24th
#3 - 22nd
#4 - 25th
#5 - 12th

So I would say we need improvement from the entire rotation not just the back end to really be competitive.

by Mike Simonek on Feb 11, 2007 3:40 PM CST reply actions

That's only 1 year

in the Hardball Time article. Grant was referencing the last 5 years. I'm much too lazy to go look it up, but I suspect that ALL of the slots have been below average over that time.

by t ball on Feb 11, 2007 7:29 PM CST up reply actions

I am sure

I am probably lazier, but I would also bet that ALL spots in the rotation have been well below average over the past 5 years.

by Mike Simonek on Feb 11, 2007 10:32 PM CST up reply actions

Kat O'Brien

Pretty solid article from her, although I have to say the most interesting thing to me in there was the inclusion of Nate Gold in the top ten prospects. She was obviously fed those names, as the inclusion of Fabio Castillo for one signals. So the guys who have been frustrated arguing with some of us that he's a quality prospect despite his age apparently have Service or someone in the organization on their side.

The other thing I was looking for was for someone to talk about how much money they're having to risk with all of these picks and how they have to play that smart. I'm really glad I didn't hear that said. I don't want to see any of those five picks appear as value picks for an organization ranked in the bottom three in baseball and with the perfect opportunity to start turning that around. But it would be so Rangers to do so.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 4:22 PM CST reply actions

Sorry

Servais, not Service

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 4:25 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know

that you can assume she was "fed" those names.

Perhaps she read the glowing prospect manual description of Castillo same as you and I did.

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 11, 2007 7:27 PM CST up reply actions

It's just the feeling I get

from her writing in general and the column specifically that that stuff is based on interviews than her analysis. Could be wrong of course.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 8:14 PM CST up reply actions

Also

She is the one who wrote the Castillo/Yan/Santana and Solis/Grullon/Font/Pimentel articles in the first place, and considering she's writing the article based on interviews with Daniels and Servais, and since she interviewed the Latin scouting guys for those previous articles, it just seems safe to assume that she's basing her information on that stuff, rather than what Aaron Fitt says. I mean she's essentially doing the same work as Fitt, doesn't seem like there's any reason to take his word rather than the guys running the team.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 8:20 PM CST up reply actions

Oh

And in terms of the '07 draft, I sure hope you're right.

Value picks turn out to be wasted picks more often than not. Though the last few drafts we seem to be spending a lot (above slot for Lemon, Teagarden, Whittleman, ect.).

"Well, everyone knows Custer died at Little Bighorn. What this book presupposes is: Maybe he didn't? " -Eli Cash

by thedirkatron on Feb 11, 2007 7:29 PM CST up reply actions

trading aki

im open to it, but only if we got a legitimate bat back.

fx2/littleton/gagne with a solid back of the pen is enough to at least be average without aki.

if you can trade Aki + a outfielder for a significantly better outfielder, i do it.

but if you trade aki just to trade him and make a lateral trade... id rather have the bullpen be the true strength that it should be with the current roster and hope the offense pans out.

in either case, i would definitely wait a few weeks into the season to see how cruz/botts/sosa are doing and wait for some team to have an underperforming bullpen and overperforming offense and make a stupid trade to get aki.

by DShep on Feb 11, 2007 7:41 PM CST reply actions

Here's the thing...

What if you can trade Otsuka for, say, a high quality AA or AAA outfield prospect?

Say, a Jacob Ellsbury?

Given the depth in the pen, isn't that something you have to look at?

Particularly since adding someone like that makes it easier for you to try to make a deal at the deadline if you need, for example, an outfield bat?

Otsuka isn't as likely to get you a quality player at the deadline as prospects are...last year was a weird case, where Milwaukee wanted to get something for Carlos Lee, but wanted major leaguers in return because they didn't want to show they were packing it in.

But if the Rangers are in the race in July, and want to add something to make a playoff push, they are going to have to give up prospects.

Giving up Otsuka for a quality prospect or two now makes that easier to accomplish downt he road.

by Adam J. Morris on Feb 11, 2007 8:33 PM CST up reply actions

Good point

but I might even consider holding onto Otsuka until the deadline in order to get prospects. While you have him he makes your bullpen better, giving you a better chance to win. If the teams tanks, you have a terrific trade chip to build for next year.

by t ball on Feb 11, 2007 9:47 PM CST up reply actions

There are three variables that we don't know

what Otsuka's trade value actually is
what the bullpen will turn out like
how good the team is (or, how good Tejeda, McCarthy, Blalock and Wilkerson will be)

We can estimate the third one, but the first two are very hard to know. The only way I could form much of an opinion on trading him is if I were to make presumptions like "you could get Ellsbury" or "the bullpen will be good without him". The problem is, I don't believe for a second that we could get an Ellsbury, even though I'm not that high on him specifically. I think that a top 30-ish prospect plus another solid one is a real stretch for Otsuka. So what range of guy could actually get? I'd just have to know that for the exercise to make sense.

On the pen without him, I think it all depends on Gagne and Francisco. This belief that that was pervasive in the fall that Rupe, Wilson and Littleton could have anchored the pen without these other guys was foolish to me. If Gagne looks effective and Francisco is healthy, I'm game for trading Otsuka for the right package. But again, it comes back to what that is, and I don't think anyone's really addressed that honestly, and I certainly don't think that "say you could get Ellsbury" is an honest, realistic scenario. It reminds me of the "say you can get Francisco Liriano or Lastings Milledge for Soriano" notion that I fought (uphill I might add) in summer 2005.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 10:44 PM CST up reply actions

Not saying

for any specific prospect. I also think it's ludicrous to right now say we could get this guy or that one in July. But the concept of holding onto Otsuka for longer than a few more weeks appeals to me for the reasons stated above. I would want longer than ST to be more certain of Gagne's health before trading Otsuka.

Of course, if a starter or two goes down like last year, all bets are off. But, barring injury, I'm game for seeing what this team as is can do for a couple of months before trade Otsuka or anyone else.

I suspect that Otsuka has decent trade value, but that's what the cell phone is for come mid-season. IF you can get an Ellsbury-level guy at that time, I'd be on board with it unless the Rangers are in contention and need to add a bat or an arm.

by t ball on Feb 11, 2007 10:56 PM CST up reply actions

I liked your point

I just think that the notion that we could get an Ellsbury type leads the conversation in the wrong direction. Let's say that Boston is the target. A more appropriate question is, would you trade Otsuka for, say, Craig Hansen and David Murphy? I know that we can't know exactly what players we might be able to get. But we can rule out top, top prospects, imo.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 11, 2007 11:06 PM CST up reply actions

We can always hope

for a stupid and desparate GM like Bavasi or Krivsky. They've made some odd deals in the past couple years...maybe we can get Dunn for Otsuka. heh.

by t ball on Feb 11, 2007 11:15 PM CST up reply actions

Of course

no one thought Texas would give up Chris Young to get Aki in the first place.

Some published lists have Hirsh rated above Ellsbury, and he got moved as part of a package for one year of Jason Jennings. So top guys do get moved in the right deals.

If a team thinks Aki is the answer to their closer problems, I could see us being able to wrangle a top 50 prospect for him.

Maybe not Ellsbury specifically, but someone of his ilk certainly.

"One must scape to farthest north part of Togo to be safe from robot leaders."

by thedirkatron on Feb 12, 2007 2:19 AM CST up reply actions

I don't think so

...unless you consider Ellsbury to be more of a borderline starter to decent starter prospect, rather than a frontline guy. Playing six degrees of Aki I imagine we could construct an Aki for Scott Kazmir trade. Chris Young was not that highly regarded when we dealt him, certainly not equivalent to a #1 prospect in a top organization. He's a good reliever, not a perennially dominant closer, and he still has the stigma, right or wrong, that the league could catch up to him.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 4:22 AM CST up reply actions

Bleck

I just wrote a big, long rebuttal (with links and everything!), but had to erase it cause I couldn't find a way to word it that didn't sound combative.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with many of your assertions and I think you have a huge man crush on Jacoby Ellsbury and should perhaps look into a romantic weekend getaway together. Maybe some place warm:)

"One must scape to farthest north part of Togo to be safe from robot leaders."

by thedirkatron on Feb 12, 2007 5:21 AM CST up reply actions

Having discussed...

zywica's tastes in women multiple times, I'd say Ellsbury has way too many womanly curves for zywica.

by benmor78 on Feb 12, 2007 6:25 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah

his breasts are too big. I've tried to get with your preferred "Matthew LeCroy" style of girl, but I just can't bring myself.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions

Actually

Zywica is not as high on Ellsbury as most, but he is probably right in downplaying expectations on what we can get for Otsuka straight up.

by t ball on Feb 12, 2007 7:43 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah

like t ball said I'm really not that high on Ellsbury. I think he's a little overrated because of the Boston/NYY fascination with Johnny Damon, and Ellsbury doesn't even have Damon's pop (which is saying something).

dirkatron - would you trade Eric Hurley for an Otsuka? I sure as heck wouldn't, and Hurley is an outside the top 50 prospect. Whether that's wise or not, teams are just going to be hesitant to give up an elite prospect - or what they consider one anyway, maybe you don't - for someone like Otsuka. I mean he's not Joe Nathan. I think I named a pretty interesting package in Hansen and Murphy. But those guys are Boston's #8 and #15 prospects according to BA (albeit in a deep system).

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

Yah

I get that. I wouldn't trade Hurley for Aki, even if we needed a closer.

I guess I see Hurley as being a better prospect than Ellsbury.

FWIW, BP rated Hurley as a "Very Good Prospect" and Ellsbury one level below as a "Good Prospect", and Sickels gave Hurley an A-, and Ellsbury a B+.

I know the BA guys are sky-high on Ellsbury, but I just don't see him that way.

That being said, you're probably very right that we probably can't get him for Aki, but I just don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to get someone like him.

I wouldn't do Hansen and Murphy. I don't believe in Hansen anymore, and I think Murphy is the kind of AAAA player you can get off waivers for free.

"One must scape to farthest north part of Togo to be safe from robot leaders."

by thedirkatron on Feb 12, 2007 5:26 PM CST up reply actions

I'm with you on Ellsbury

and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they could trade for someone who you and/or I consider to be in the class that we'd put Ellsbury. But the Red Sox really like him and just aren't trading him for Otsuka. And if we're going to broadly say 'someone else like Ellsbury' I think it's necessary to specify that we're talking about an Ellsbury that is not an elite prospect, not what many are goign to perceive when we say "an Ellsbury type". Because he's going to be right around 30 in the BA list, right around guys like Tabata, Braun and Fernandez and pitchers who are 20 or so (and by 20 or so I mean 20 or so pitchers) ahead of Hurley.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 12, 2007 5:41 PM CST up reply actions

Otsuka

I would deal him at any time if the right deal presented itself. If Boston waved Ellsbury in front of our face then I ship him out. If they don't get the right deal hang onto him. I might be drinking too much Ranger cool-aid, but I think the bullpen will be fine with or without him. Someone will emerge to take that spot if we were to deal him.

I think even if we dealt him, and Gagne was a waste that it might take a bit but the guys would work into roles and be just fine.

by Mike Simonek on Feb 11, 2007 10:34 PM CST reply actions