Keith Law has a chat transcript up from today, with a couple of Rangers-related items...
Keith Law: (1:28 PM ET ) I think the only two guys there who come back to haunt them are the first two. And even Andrus is a ways off - there's a time-value involved here, where Atlanta gave away Andrus' potential stardom in 2010+ for Teixeira's stardom today.
Saltalamacchia and Andrus are the only two real high ceiling guys the Braves gave up in these flurry of deals (other than perhaps Neftali Feliz), so I think this makes sense, but if the Braves fall short again in 2008, the Teixeira trade is going to end up looking pretty bad...
Keith Law: (1:08 PM ET ) That would be a waste of Duran's value - he can play 2b well, so why move him off of it?
Law's answer is so simple, so basic, that I don't understand why more people don't get this.
I've read several people on here suggest moving Duran to first base, or moving Hank Blalock to first base (to make room for Travis Metcalf), or moving Salts McGee to first base (to make room for Taylor Teagarden), or moving Ian Kinsler to left field...
Moving a guy from a high-value defensive position, like second base or catcher, to a low-value defensive position, like left field or first base, is almost always a bad move unless the player's defense is such that a change has to be made.
You don't move a guy who is an acceptable fielder from second base to first base because you already have a second baseman and don't have a long-term first baseman.
Saying, "Let's move Ian Kinsler to left field, because he hits well enough to be okay out there" makes no sense because then you are taking an above-average second baseman (factoring in bat and glove) and turning him into a below-average left fielder (factoring in bat and glove).
It is one thing to make a move like that for short-term reasons, because you expect to be a playoff contender and can't find a better way to fill that hole.
But long-term, like Law says, it is a waste of resources, and isn't something a smart team should do.