Still catching up and this appears to be the trades I can find:
Nationals Charlie Morton SP Traded to Rangers 10/14/10 11:30 pm
Nationals David Robertson MR Traded to Rangers 10/14/10 11:30 pm
Nationals Brett Gardner CF Traded to Rangers 10/14/10 11:30 pm
Rangers Kerry Wood CL Traded to Nationals 10/14/10 11:30 pm
Rangers Rich Harden SP Traded to Nationals 10/14/10 11:30 pm
Giants Giants Draft Pick 5 Traded to Rangers 10/21/10 5:09 am
Giants Giants Draft Pick 4 Traded to Rangers 10/21/10 5:09 am
Giants Jason Motte MR Traded to Rangers 10/21/10 5:09 am
Giants Gerardo Parra LF Traded to Rangers 10/21/10 5:09 am
Rangers Carlos Zambrano SP Traded to Giants 10/21/10 5:09 am
Giants Joe Saunders SP Traded to Rangers 10/21/10 5:09 am
Astros Conor Jackson LF Traded to Rangers 10/21/10 5:09 am
Rangers Wilson Betemit 3B Traded to Astros 10/21/10 5:09 am
RedSox Clayton Richard SP Traded to Rangers 10/23/10 6:24 am
RedSox Joshua Bell 3B Traded to Rangers 10/23/10 6:24 am
Rangers Derrek Lee 1B Traded to RedSox 10/23/10 6:24 am
Nationals Carlos Monasterios SP Traded to Rangers 10/23/10 6:24 am
Rangers Michael Morse 1B Traded to Nationals 10/23/10 6:24 am
Am I missing something because there seems to be a lot of angst about the above? The only real stinker is the "Z" trade and I believe he is over rated though I will admit he should have another good year or two of SIMability ...
Ranger Trades as of 10/24/10
Moderator: Executive Committee
-
Rangers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Prosper, TX
- Name: Brett Perryman
I vetoed the Santana/Wilson deal, which I could not understand at all, the Zambrano deals, and the two 1-for-1 trades. I've never vetoed four trades in close sequence like that, much less four of the same team's. I don't understand why anyone would trade Betemit after a breakout season for a non-defender who's never had a season like Betemit just had and who hasn't even been major league quality for the past two years. The same is true of Morse for Monasterios. They are minor deals, but they make no sense to me. You'e essentially giving away 90-95% of the upside.
The two big deals were more troubling, though, as they pretty clearly seemed to indicate to me a misunderstanding of what a valuable asset is for this league. Fifty-man rosters may seem pretty big, but dealing quality starters (Wilson and Santana) and Zambrano for just sort of a bunch of stuff to fill the roster back out is an indication that the know-how to build a roster isn't there.
The overriding question that I would have is, where is the upside in these deals? There is plenty of downside, so how is that downside offset? The best argument that I can make is, well, maybe all of the good players drop back, and the players he got back reach their middling potential and are roughly as good. You don't get better in our league by having a whole lot of 19th-25th men. Ask Cleveland, Chicago (Cubs), Dave Taylor, Brett Degen, etc.
And what I would pair with that is that the impatience was startling. He didn't do any legwork. Hearing that others couldn't even get offers in because he was so anxious to take these deals was disheartening.
The other two deals, I was fine with. Wood for Gardner makes sense, and Lee for Bell is a gamble, but it's easy to see how it could work out, particularly for a building team. But there was just so much that I couldn't make any sense of, and I think that all of you know that I am very open-minded about trades as a general rule.
The two big deals were more troubling, though, as they pretty clearly seemed to indicate to me a misunderstanding of what a valuable asset is for this league. Fifty-man rosters may seem pretty big, but dealing quality starters (Wilson and Santana) and Zambrano for just sort of a bunch of stuff to fill the roster back out is an indication that the know-how to build a roster isn't there.
The overriding question that I would have is, where is the upside in these deals? There is plenty of downside, so how is that downside offset? The best argument that I can make is, well, maybe all of the good players drop back, and the players he got back reach their middling potential and are roughly as good. You don't get better in our league by having a whole lot of 19th-25th men. Ask Cleveland, Chicago (Cubs), Dave Taylor, Brett Degen, etc.
And what I would pair with that is that the impatience was startling. He didn't do any legwork. Hearing that others couldn't even get offers in because he was so anxious to take these deals was disheartening.
The other two deals, I was fine with. Wood for Gardner makes sense, and Lee for Bell is a gamble, but it's easy to see how it could work out, particularly for a building team. But there was just so much that I couldn't make any sense of, and I think that all of you know that I am very open-minded about trades as a general rule.
-
Cardinals
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Manch Vegas, CT
- Name: John Paul Starkey
I think Brett summed it up pretty well, and I particularly agree with the part where he didn't even listen to other GMs.
He was in the league for less than 20 hours when he made half these trades. I had inquired about Wilson myself and he told me he wasn't involved in any talks and he'd look at my team and get back to me. He dealt him the next hour. Levine and Lape had also asked about Wilson and was told the same thing and obviously, the same result happened. These are trades that you make at 11:59 PM EDT on deadline day. I even told him that and he admitted to me that the Z trade was poor by saying, " think Z is a very old 29. I can honestly see that deal being shot down...In other leagues with salary caps Z and his huge contract are a massive burden. Not as much the case."
He can't be using other caps league values, especially if they use salary cap, and apply that logic here. It's just a different animal and it's a huge red flag. I fully agree with the Lee for Bell/Richard trade, I thought that was a good risk to take. Every other trade is either awful or reckless to me. I'm probably Rich Harden's biggest fan in the league admittedly and no, I wouldn't veto that deal, but he just has such little regard for the value of pitching. He also just went ahead and "fixed" his CJ wilson deal by having Gabe add Jordan Walden, as if he'll make any difference up.
I told him all of this but I'm not sure he listened.
He was in the league for less than 20 hours when he made half these trades. I had inquired about Wilson myself and he told me he wasn't involved in any talks and he'd look at my team and get back to me. He dealt him the next hour. Levine and Lape had also asked about Wilson and was told the same thing and obviously, the same result happened. These are trades that you make at 11:59 PM EDT on deadline day. I even told him that and he admitted to me that the Z trade was poor by saying, " think Z is a very old 29. I can honestly see that deal being shot down...In other leagues with salary caps Z and his huge contract are a massive burden. Not as much the case."
He can't be using other caps league values, especially if they use salary cap, and apply that logic here. It's just a different animal and it's a huge red flag. I fully agree with the Lee for Bell/Richard trade, I thought that was a good risk to take. Every other trade is either awful or reckless to me. I'm probably Rich Harden's biggest fan in the league admittedly and no, I wouldn't veto that deal, but he just has such little regard for the value of pitching. He also just went ahead and "fixed" his CJ wilson deal by having Gabe add Jordan Walden, as if he'll make any difference up.
I told him all of this but I'm not sure he listened.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
I agree with Brett and JP. I feel bad for Gabe because he had the one vetoed deal, because there's no way the Zambrano deal should've passed and that's what he told me when we were texting the other day. We all know that in this league if you're looking for a SP that's not a back end innings eating #5 you're not going to find it. He dealt Carlos Zambrano for said back end innings eater, a 4th outfielder, a setup man and 2 essentially useless draft picks. Really, how often do you get an impact player that late? (I was going to look, but I can't find our draft history and I'm not digging through everything to find it)
I think the thing that everyone is upset about is the fact that he did all of this damage in a day. It wasn't that he made bad trades so much as he didn't even take time to try and make good trades. This is why there was such a stability issue in the IBC from 2002-2005, a new guy comes in, we gang bang him his first day or two, destroy the roster, the rich get richer and we have another shitty team on our hands. There were pieces to move on this team to get quality players and prospects. The only deal where I see that happening is the Gardner deal. From now on we watch this guy like a hawk, end of story
I think the thing that everyone is upset about is the fact that he did all of this damage in a day. It wasn't that he made bad trades so much as he didn't even take time to try and make good trades. This is why there was such a stability issue in the IBC from 2002-2005, a new guy comes in, we gang bang him his first day or two, destroy the roster, the rich get richer and we have another shitty team on our hands. There were pieces to move on this team to get quality players and prospects. The only deal where I see that happening is the Gardner deal. From now on we watch this guy like a hawk, end of story
