Rangers Have Interest in Garland

[Reddy]

This is what I'm saying...If KW trades Sweeney for Neifi Perez and Sweeney does not pan out in the future, that doesn't make it a good trade because KW could have gotten more than Neifi Perez for Sweeney.

you think we couldve gotten more for reed and olivo?

[hitlesswonder]

This is what I'm saying...If KW trades Sweeney for Neifi Perez and Sweeney does not pan out in the future, that doesn't make it a good trade because KW could have gotten more than Neifi Perez for Sweeney.

 

 

The thing is, it's hard for us to know that KW could have gotten more for a particular package. Maybe you're hooked up with MLB people and actually know more than the average message board reader, but I have no real idea of what the market is for players.

 

I'll admit that I thought KW overpaid for Garcia. Reed was one of the few Sox prospects that places like BP and Baseball America really, really liked. And I thought that KW overpaid for Thome. I know that Gio Gonzalez could still turn out to be a special pitcher, but that trade looks a lot better today than I thought it did at the time.

 

Someone brought up the Kip Wells trade, and I think that is one trade that really did hurt the Sox. Although Wells may have been mediocre (and he actually was pretty good in 2003), having his mediocrity in the #5 starter slot in 2002 through 2004 might have brought the Sox a division title. The Koch trade is similar, in that having Foulke in 2003 could have meant a division title (or more). But there may have been payroll issues with that trade that KW couldn't control.

[Rowand44]

Someone brought up the Kip Wells trade, and I think that is one trade that really did hurt the Sox. Although Wells may have been mediocre (and he actually was pretty good in 2003), having his mediocrity in the #5 starter slot in 2002 through 2004 might have brought the Sox a division title. The Koch trade is similar, in that having Foulke in 2003 could have meant a division title (or more). But there may have been payroll issues with that trade that KW couldn't control.

Wells would have been much worse than mediocre if he was pitching in the American League those seasons. As for the Koch trade, if we don't have Neal in 05, who the hell knows what happens.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Rowand44

[hitlesswonder]

Wells would have been much worse than mediocre if he was pitching in the American League those seasons. As for the Koch trade, if we don't have Neal in 05, who the hell knows what happens.

 

That's crazy. In 2003 Wells had a 3.28 ERA in the NL in about 200 innings. If you figure it would be a full run higher in the AL (which is crazy, 0.25 runs would be much more realistic), then he's at 4.28. That's about the same level as Buehrle pitched that season. And it would have been a hell of a lot better than the 6+ ERA Dan Wright (the 5th starter) posted. By 2004, Wells was already pretty clearly injured, and I don't think he would have done much better than a 5 ERA in the AL. Pathetically, that still would have a been a god-send as the 5th starters on that team were beyond terrible.

 

Look, I think Williams is a very good GM. In 6 years as GM, he's made 2 trades that I think hurt the team. That's a great record. But it's silly to pretend that he's never made a mistake.

[nitetrain8601]

That's crazy. In 2003 Wells had a 3.28 ERA in the NL in about 200 innings. If you figure it would be a full run higher in the AL (which is crazy, 0.25 runs would be much more realistic), then he's at 4.28. That's about the same level as Buehrle pitched that season. And it would have been a hell of a lot better than the 6+ ERA Dan Wright (the 5th starter) posted. By 2004, Wells was already pretty clearly injured, and I don't think he would have done much better than a 5 ERA in the AL. Pathetically, that still would have a been a god-send as the 5th starters on that team were beyond terrible.

 

Look, I think Williams is a very good GM. In 6 years as GM, he's made 2 trades that I think hurt the team. That's a great record. But it's silly to pretend that he's never made a mistake.

 

Wells trade wasn't his IIRC. It was Schueler.

[SoxFan562004]

Wells trade wasn't his IIRC. It was Schueler.

Sounds right, or at least Schueler had a hand in it, because one of the members here have/had a sig with a quote from Ron discussing the trade.

[Dick Allen]

Wells trade wasn't his IIRC. It was Schueler.

It was a KW trade. Schueler was employed as an advisor. He advised against sending Fogg with Wells. It really was a bad trade.

[nitetrain8601]

It was a KW trade. Schueler was employed as an advisor. He advised against sending Fogg with Wells. It really was a bad trade.

 

You sure because someone had a sig with a link to the article stating it was Schueler's and that Schueler knew he didn't have to send both Fogg and Wells, but did so anyway.

[ptatc]

You sure because someone had a sig with a link to the article stating it was Schueler's and that Schueler knew he didn't have to send both Fogg and Wells, but did so anyway.

 

It was KW with a quote from Schueler who was a consultant at the time, that he liked the trade but didn't know if Fogg needed to be included with Wells and Lowe.

[RockRaines]

This is what I'm saying...If KW trades Sweeney for Neifi Perez and Sweeney does not pan out in the future, that doesn't make it a good trade because KW could have gotten more than Neifi Perez for Sweeney.

The Royals traded Jermaine Dye for Nefi Perez, which is an even worse trade.

[bschmaranz]

ESPN Insider has a blurp up in the rumors section about Vazquez to the Rangers... mentions reliever Nick Masset as the possible return.

[RME JICO]

The Rangers have been considering a deal with the Chicago White Sox that could mean parting with top pitching prospect John Danks in exchange for workhorse Javier Vazquez. The White Sox, however, are also interested in reliever Nick Masset and the Rangers might prefer to deal him or could stop the talks all together.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...de.1c812d1.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scor...uth.rumors.mlb/

Edited November 20, 2006 by RME JICO

[witesoxfan]

The Rangers have been considering a deal with the Chicago White Sox that could mean parting with top pitching prospect John Danks in exchange for workhorse Javier Vazquez. The White Sox, however, are also interested in reliever Nick Masset and the Rangers might prefer to deal him or could stop the talks all together.

 

If the conversation doesn't begin with Danks and Masset, Kenny Williams could stop the talks all together.

[cwsfan13]

If the conversation doesn't begin with Danks and Masset, Kenny Williams could stop the talks all together.

Yup. Teams need to remember that the Sox have what they need and not the other way around. Teams also need to remember that you have to give up quality to get it. Even though every starter underachieved to some degree they are still worth alot on the trade market and if the Rangers dont get it then f*** them b/c there more teams interested than what the papers say.

[Flash Tizzle]

If the conversation doesn't begin with Danks and Masset, Kenny Williams could stop the talks all together.

This can't possibly be the best package available to us........right?

 

I recall several weeks ago when Sheffield was connected with Linebreck/prospects in trade discussions. Yankee fans were seriously considering it as their best option. Not many believed a malcontent OF recovering from an injury and commanding a contract extension could receive much return value. Shortly thereafter, Detroit stepped forward.

 

What I'm hoping is, when several starting pitchers are signed, the trade proposals increase beyond Danks/Masset. My philosophy is if Sheffield, with all his issues, can give the Yankees three legitimate pitching prospects, one of our starters should bring in two. Not because they deserve it, but because the field of available pitchers is thin.

 

It's funny to read the quote posted where the Rangers are considering walking about from the deal. That must be a Rangers officially leaking such information, because I don't know if ANYONE considers Masset a deal-breaker. What exactly do the Rangers have to walk back to, anyways? Another year of mediocre pitching?

 

If Williams overpaid for Vazquez in a calm market, shouldn't we expect more in a one overvaluing every available starting pitcher? That's atleast how I look at it.

[ptatc]

This can't possibly be the best package available to us........right?

 

I recall several weeks ago when Sheffield was connected with Linebreck/prospects in trade discussions. Yankee fans were seriously considering it as their best option. Not many believed a malcontent OF recovering from an injury and commanding a contract extension could receive much return value. Shortly thereafter, Detroit stepped forward.

 

What I'm hoping is, when several starting pitchers are signed, the trade proposals increase beyond Danks/Masset. My philosophy is if Sheffield, with all his issues, can give the Yankees three legitimate pitching prospects, one of our starters should bring in two. Not because they deserve it, but because the field of available pitchers is thin.

 

It's funny to read the quote posted where the Rangers are considering walking about from the deal. That must be a Rangers officially leaking such information, because I don't know if ANYONE considers Masset a deal-breaker. What exactly do the Rangers have to walk back to, anyways? Another year of mediocre pitching?

 

If Williams overpaid for Vazquez in a calm market, shouldn't we expect more in a one overvaluing every available starting pitcher? That's atleast how I look at it.

 

Overpaid? He traded a broken down pitcher who won't throw more than140 innings again in his life, a decent middle reliever and a good hittng prospect for an innings eater talented starting pitcher.

 

By that theory, we cannot get a good starting pitching prospect for an established starting pitcher.

Edited November 21, 2006 by ptatc

[cwsfan13]

Overpaid? He traded a broken down pitcher who won't throw more than140 innings again in his life, a decent middle reliever and a good hittng prospect for an innings eater talented starting pitcher.

 

By that theory, we cannot get a good starting pitching prospect for an established starting pitcher.

The starting pitching market is a bit different this year with sky-rocketing prices and the free-agent market being so thin if KW holds out he will get good returns for one of the starters.

[Balta1701]

The starting pitching market is a bit different this year with sky-rocketing prices and the free-agent market being so thin if KW holds out he will get good returns for one of the starters.

...or more than one of them (given the same market conditions you refer to, it does sort of make sense to sell when the bids might be the highest)

[cwsfan13]

...or more than one of them (given the same market conditions you refer to, it does sort of make sense to sell when the bids might be the highest)

You got it. As long as we can get someone to slide into the rotation with Jose,BMc,JG and MB that would be getting the most out of our pitchers who could fly the coop in 08.

[Flash Tizzle]

Overpaid? He traded a broken down pitcher who won't throw more than140 innings again in his life, a decent middle reliever and a good hittng prospect for an innings eater talented starting pitcher.

 

By that theory, we cannot get a good starting pitching prospect for an established starting pitcher.

I believe you're misunderstanding my theory.

 

You're looking at such a deal now. Look at it from the beginning -- A dependable MLB reliever, swingman/starter capable of 100+ innings, AND a good OF prospect brought you Vazquez. This was following a mediocre season from Javier in the national league, and when the market didn't necessitate someone overpaying for a pitcher. We didn't exactly need one, BTW. McCArthy could have been in the rotation and Hernandez in the bullpen with Vizcaino.

 

Following another medicore year in 2006, I figure he'll command a similar package -- if not for the current market of starting pitchers. This changes everything.

 

Even if you're looking for something similar, you have to reasonably compare Young and Danks in their respective positions. Now, does Masset compare to Vizcaino? Hell no. There's not even a swingman starter in the current proposal from the Rangers.

 

Danks/Masset isn't overpaying, as I would hope for -- but about equal value. Trading for 'equal value' shouldn't be our objective. That's all I'm suggesintg.

[cwsfan13]

I believe you're misunderstanding my theory.

 

You're looking at such a deal now. Look at it from the beginning -- A dependable MLB reliever, swingman/starter capable of 100+ innings, AND a good OF prospect brought you Vazquez. This was following a mediocre season from Javier in the national league, and when the market didn't necessitate someone overpaying for a pitcher. We didn't exactly need one, BTW. McCArthy could have been in the rotation and Hernandez in the bullpen with Vizcaino.

 

Following another medicore year in 2006, I figure he'll command a similar package -- if not for the current market of starting pitchers. This changes everything.

 

Even if you're looking for something similar, you have to reasonably compare Young and Danks in their respective positions. Now, does Masset compare to Vizcaino? Hell no. There's not even a swingman starter in the current proposal from the Rangers.

 

Danks/Masset isn't overpaying, as I would hope for -- but about equal value. Trading for 'equal value' shouldn't be our objective. That's all I'm suggesintg.

OK. I see what your saying. I agree we shouldnt be looking for equal value but more than that.

 

It seems the Rangers want their pitcher for now as well as their pitchers for the future and thats just not going to happen, especially with who I think is the smartest GM in all of sports KW.

 

If it was up to me I would tell Texas what we would expect in return for which-ever pitchers they are looking at and if they dont like then PISS OFF. There are plenty of teams we can deal with and its still early in the off-season.

[Balta1701]

Danks/Masset isn't overpaying, as I would hope for -- but about equal value. Trading for 'equal value' shouldn't be our objective. That's all I'm suggesintg.

If we only move 1 guy, moving him for "equal value" is acceptable if that is the best we can do. We simply don't know how desperate these teams are for pitching yet, and they may be a lot more willing to part with money than with prospects. McCarthy must get into the rotation, and we must get something for one of those guys, and we must free up some money to re-up with Buehrle this offseason if he's the one not traded. Those must happen, no matter what our offers are. The rest all depends on what others offer us.

[ptatc]

I believe you're misunderstanding my theory.

 

You're looking at such a deal now. Look at it from the beginning -- A dependable MLB reliever, swingman/starter capable of 100+ innings, AND a good OF prospect brought you Vazquez. This was following a mediocre season from Javier in the national league, and when the market didn't necessitate someone overpaying for a pitcher. We didn't exactly need one, BTW. McCArthy could have been in the rotation and Hernandez in the bullpen with Vizcaino.

 

Following another medicore year in 2006, I figure he'll command a similar package -- if not for the current market of starting pitchers. This changes everything.

 

Even if you're looking for something similar, you have to reasonably compare Young and Danks in their respective positions. Now, does Masset compare to Vizcaino? Hell no. There's not even a swingman starter in the current proposal from the Rangers.

 

Danks/Masset isn't overpaying, as I would hope for -- but about equal value. Trading for 'equal value' shouldn't be our objective. That's all I'm suggesintg.

 

I'll buy that.

[beck72]

The only teams that will think about trading their top AAA SP prospects [guys who will start the yr there, I mean, guys who can slide into the sox rotation in 2008, maybe by the end of 2007] are for sure playoff teams who want to win now[mets, yanks]. Or have big holes in their pitching and need a guy who can eat innings, ala Tex, Balt.

 

I get what people are saying with the sox holding out for the best deal. But the sox can't hold out forever, though, as Bmac is coming to the rotation. In order to get the guys the sox want, they may have to take a fair deal, rather than holding out and waiting for the best available prospects/ players. The quality of who the sox get, may mean more in the long term than the quantity of the players involved.

[Rowand44]

Even if you're looking for something similar, you have to reasonably compare Young and Danks in their respective positions.

I'm surprised you of all people would consider Danks and Young equals. Young is one hell of a prospect, dont get me wrong, but getting an arm like Danks is much, much more valuable than an outfielder like Young.