clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Phil Rogers on Brandon McCarthy and John Danks

New, comments

Phil Rogers now says that the ChiSox made a great move in dealing Brandon McCarthy for John Danks...

This spring I've asked executives and scouts from other organizations how they see McCarthy, and the consensus is that he looks like a middle- or even a back-of-the-rotation guy, not the kind of guy you build a rotation around.

The scouts who know Danks seem higher on him, even though his fastball is similarly in the low-90s. He's left-handed, his curveball can be a weapon and his intangibles are almost off the chart.

According to a major-league source, the Tigers targeted Danks as a player they had to have in any trade talks with the Rangers last winter. But whenever his name came up, the Rangers asked for somebody like Jeremy Bonderman or Joel Zumaya.

One of their scouts was stunned when he heard the White Sox had been able to get him for McCarthy.

This is in contrast with what Rogers said when the deal was made:

It's surprising the Sox would trade a 23-year-old with the potential to win 15 to 18 games every year.

* * *

It's true that he was inconsistent and sometimes confused in his 2006 stint as a bullpen guy and a starter-in-waiting. But don't forget McCarthy went 7-1 with a 1.88 ERA in 16 starts between Triple A and the big leagues in the second half of 2005, including wins at Texas and Boston that helped keep the Sox's wheels on the tracks. During that stretch, there wasn't a pitcher in baseball as consistently good.

He'll be a star for the Rangers if he pitches half that well. The Sox continue to amass quantity, but only time will tell about the quality.

I've got to say, I'm baffled.

When Danks was in the Ranger organization, I remember seeing a lot of stuff about how he projected as a #3 starter.

McCarthy, when he was with the ChiSox, was projected as a potential #1.

Now that the deal has gone down, suddenly, Danks is the guy who is the future top-of-the-rotation starter, while McCarthy is a back-end guy?

I don't get it.

And I have to wonder if some of this isn't fueled by the fact that the Rangers, historically, haven't developed pitchers, and thus the assumption is that Danks going to the ChiSox means his ceiling is raised, while McCarthy's is lowered by coming to Texas.