A couple of real interesting things...Grant, in the latter part of the column, fields a question about what happened to the Rangers "great chemistry" that supposedly fueled all their success last year.
More importantly, though, he takes a look at the Soriano trade situation, and has this critique of the outcome:
Ultimately, the Rangers thought Soriano was worth more than Minnesota was willing to give up. My limited business experience tells me that a commodity is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it.
And that limited business experience also tells me that Soriano, who can be a free agent after next season, will never be worth more than he was in the heat of a pennant race when he was the only dynamic offensive player available on the market.
Barring an August trade (which we explain later in the newsletter), Soriano remains here for the season. The Rangers say they have no qualms about offering him a contract for 2006, even though it will cost them at least $10 million to sign him and even though they have a minor league second baseman, Ian Kinsler, who should be ready to step in for 2006. If Soriano returns, that's likely to limit the dollars available to upgrade pitching for 2006.
The only thing that's clear from this exercise is that the Rangers couldn't get what they wanted for Soriano at the deadline. It just makes me think of a Rolling Stones song and the lines:
"You can't always get what you want,
but if you try, sometimes, you just might find
you get what you need."
Grant says that the best offer from the Twins was Romero, either Lohse or Mays, and a pitching prospect other than Liriano or Baker.
If this is true, I don't understand why the Rangers passed. Romero is quite flippable, and if you can add, say, Lohse, a decent innings eater, plus a J.D. Durbin or a Glen Perkins or a Boof Bonser, then I think the Rangers should have pulled the trigger on that deal.
Expecting to get more than that for Soriano in the offseason is foolish.