While I still think Greinke would be the best option for upgrading our rotation going into next season, if he re-signs with LAA (which seems like the most likely scenario at this point) what would y'all think of calling up the Mets to see if they were willing to part with RA Dickey? He'd be costly in terms of trade value as he's only on the books for roughly 5 mil. but with only one year left on his contract and the Mets not likely to contend next season, he would seem like a candidate to move. I'd start by offering Holland, Buckel, and Odor, though I'd imagine that might be a bit light for them considering he was a leading contender for the NL Cy Young most of last season. I'd also be interested in seeing what else it would cost for them to include Ike Davis but Dickey would be the primary goal. What would y'all think of trading for Dickey and what do you think it'd cost?

Not gonna happen.

And I don't have anything against Dickey, but I find knuckleballers to show quite a bit of variance from season-to-season, and I'm suspect about how he will do in the American League, in our ballpark. It's not out of the question that his ERA could jump a point or a point and a half.

I hear what your saying here, but Dickey doesn't really fit the organizational philosophy of young, power pitchers. I don't have any kind of hypothetical trade packages, but I'm sure whatever we were to give up would be way too much. Odor is a prime prospect, will probably show up on a lot of top-50 lists in the next couple years.

I'm sorry but that is way to much to give up for Dickey. Holland alone is too much; when healthy, I still believe he is a 2. If we miss out on Greinke, I can see the FO try to pull Annibal Sanchez, Hellickson (if not trading for Price), Scott Diamond's a potential, or we can keep Dempster around for an innings eater. It's not flashy but most staff's are not made up of the big names. I've been on the trade Matt Harrison wagon for a few years now...in the years past he has been effectively wild, missing spots often but still able to get enough done to merit a look. This season he seemed to control his stuff more and I'm curious to see how he comes out next year, but I'm more than okay seeing what he would fetch in a trade (full disclosure if you cant tell, but I'm biased against him).

I understand the hesitancy with trading for a knuckleballer like Dickey and while I'm not really worried about how he would translate to our park or the AL, the original package I proposed is costly. Given his low salary for this season though the amount of competition, if he was to be made available, would be significant enough to where I think the price would get that high. Perhaps that's all the more reason not to engage in those discussions to begin with but I'd still make that deal if I were the Rangers. It would not be my first choice but I do think he would be our best chance to find another true difference maker in the rotation if getting Greinke or Price doesn't happen.

I assure you, a Holland/Buckel/Odor package will get you a bigger difference make than an old, 1 year left on my contract R.A. Dickey. That's just crazy talk.

Difference maker*

I would, were I the Rangers brass, consider Dickey but not for the trade you proposed. Maybe Justin Grimm and one lower level prospect

RA dickey is 37 years old.........last year was his "one-year in the sun" as with so many pitchers who have been in the majors throughout history. Then he had some type of arm surgery recently!!! No way no how..............

..."Then he had some type of arm surgery recently!!! No way no how".

...not to worry.... with what he throws he could use the other arm.

I really hope y'all are right that it wouldn't cost a package like this but honestly I'm not so sure. I also think you're undervaluing Dickey a bit. He had 4.6 fWar, 3.27 xFIP, 230 K's, and 8.86 K/9. He was one of the top 15 pitchers in the league last season and while I would expect a bit of regression, nothing about his numbers suggests he's going to fall off a cliff in terms of value. Also, while the original thought in the post was as an alternative to Greinke/Price, at 5 mil. for this season acquiring him wouldn't preclude us from pursuing Greinke or Sanchez on the FA market as well. However, because he only has 1 year left, I would probably ask for someone like Ike Davis or Jeurys Familia who is one of their top prospects but seems destined for the bullpen rather than the rotation as well (Familia actually sounds a good bit like Feliz when he was coming up through our system).

Ryan, I appreciate you incorporating some facts to help justify your points, but you can basically throw xFIP out the window when dealing with knuckleball pitchers. It's not an accurate determination with pitchers of that ilk.

I'm of the opinion it would be a huge mistake to move Derek Holland (owed $6.5M AAV over the next 4 years) for a guy we'd be getting for one season. And from the Mets perspective, there's no way they will trade a pitcher fresh off a Cy Young who will be making $5M next season. That's just too much of a good thing to give away.

Dickey's strikeouts jumped almost over 50% last year. I'd bet against it staying there, unless he really learned something last year, but even then he's 37. I definitely wouldn't trade for him based on him being a Cy young level pitcher, as that has happened once in his career. Between the normal NL to AL drop he would also likely be a worse pitcher next year through him likely having just been pitching better then true talent last year.

that's got to be a pass for us.

Thank you all for your comments on this subject. While I'd still be interested in trading for him I understand where y'all are coming from and appreciate the discussion. I also wasn't aware xFIP was less telling for knuckleballers than standard pitchers so thank you Eric, that's good to know. I'll be curious to see whether or not he gets moved this winter and what the price is if he does, but he probably would be a better fit in the NL. Should be a fun couple months.

I love RA. would love to have him on the team as he would be a good 2 or 3 and would eat a lot of innings. wonder how his control would be with the way the wind bounces off the back wall out to the outfield. hell it might move too much there for his own sake. we have what it takes to get the guy but they likely would have to ask too much to save face with the NY media

age shouldn't factor into this. he is a knukleballer and likely has a lot more years ahead of him if he has mastered the trade. Look at charlie hough. he just started to get good about this age and he smokes like a chimney.

No way, that package is too much for Dickey. Plus at 37 he is too old. I really don't see Dempster back either. Maybe Greinke comes maybe not, but in reality with a rotation of Darvish, Harrison, Ogando, and Holland the staff seems almost complete. I can see a Kuroda like pitcher coming in for some small money maybe a Marcum or maybe Haren coming in. I really think you will see a veteran innings type of guy come in to be the number 5 if Greinke falls through. As far as Greinke goes, I whole heartedly expect him to be a Dodger if he is not a Ranger next season. Also if Greinke deal does not go through I fully expect hamilton back.

Dickey did just have surgery, but it was abdominal surgery, not arm surgery. He pitched all season with a tear in his abdominal wall.

I see no reason why the Angels still aren't favorites to land Greinke. The Angels are dumping salary left and right. They'll have an escalating payroll with Pujols and C.J. among others, and they'll have a TV deal soon, but right now it looks like they're gearing up to make another splash in FA this year, and I have to think they'll push for Greinke against anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up blowing by Matt Cain's deal and getting into Hamels territory.

1) Dickey is a knuckler... and knuckleballers tend to get better as they get older. He's still very young for a knuckleball pitcher.
2) Dickey has no UCL - never did... surgery wouldn't be likely needed as he doesn't put enough stress on his shoulder to cause injury there. When we drafted him, initially, we signed him at a hugely reduced bonus because of his missing UCL. And, that shortcoming was ultimately why he went the knuckleball route.
3) Dickey started his professional career here and might like coming back. I know he initially was disappointed that we sent him off to Florida with Rick Helling.

...but, your package was wildly overpaid from our side. I think we could probably get him for either Grimm/Leonys Martin or just Martin Perez straight up.

They didn't send Dickey to FL, they sent Dempster there ...Dickey was released

@Ed. Below is aink to fangraph's explanation of the new Rules.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-quick-walk-through-the-new-hot-stove-rules/

I think MLB TradeRumors also has an explanation somewhere. The way I understand it, if a player plays the entire season, is extended Qualifying Offer, and signs with another team, then the signing team, for example, the Rangers, them the Rangers lose their highest pick unless they are one of the protected teams, which are the ten teams with the worst records. The losing team, lets say the Yankees, receive a draft pick in the Supplemental Round occurring between rounds one and two.

There is still room for gamesmanship. Fangraphs suggests an unprotected team like the Rangers, could encourage the Astros to sign Harren. As a protected team the Astros keep the draft pick. They then turn around and trade Harren to Texas for compensation. As long as the compensating player is considered less valuable than the draft pick Dallas is ahead economically. Same with the Astros, who get a prospect they never had. The Angels lose the Texas draft pick they would have been granted otherwise.

Primi, whoever you are reading has somewhat misstated the new rules, and the scheme you propose simply wouldn't make sense.

1 A team - any team - that signs a player who has received a qualifying offer will lose a pick. It would be whatever pick they have that falls within 11-40.
2 Regardless of who signs the player, the prior team (in your example, the Angels) will be awarded a compensation pick that gets slotted somewhere between original picks 30 and 31.

David. Here is the Fangraphs explanation.

Say — and again, I’m making all of this up for illustration purposes only — the Astros hear through the grapevine that Shaun Marcum is asking for $8 million on a one year deal in order to build back up his value and hit the market again next winter, and that the Royals are interested in bringing him in, but aren’t sure they can afford to sign him and still have money to afford Anibal Sanchez, who is their primary pitching target. The Astros could then approach both Marcum and the Royals and suggest that a sign-and-trade is in everyone’s best interests. The Astros would sign Marcum for $8.5 million — enough of an incentive to get him to go along with the plan — and then immediately trade him to Kansas City in exchange for, say, Lorenzo Cain, while picking up the tab for the entirety of the contract Marcum just signed. (Royals fans, don’t freak out. The actual names don’t matter. This is just an illustration.)

The Royals would essentially get the Major League free agent they wanted without increasing their payroll, allowing them to pursue everyone else on their target list, while the Astros would spend their Major League surplus acquiring guys with more long term value than the veterans who populate free agency. And Marcum would get $500,000 for the trouble of agreeing to waive the provision that says a player can’t be traded without his consent until June 15th after signing a free agent contract. He’d get a little more money, the Astros would put their budget surplus to better use, and the Royals could essentially trade for a free agent in order to keep their payroll flexibility.

Previously, there just wasn’t an incentive to pull off these kinds of moves, since Major League payroll could be reallocated to the budgets for the draft or international free agency, but the new limitations cut off that avenue for increased spending while rebuilding. While I don’t expect any teams to pursue this course, it is possible that a team like the Astros or Cubs could take some of their Major League payroll and use it to essentially establish sign-and-trades in MLB. Whether the commissioner’s office would go along with such transactions is an open question, but from my reading of the CBA, there’s nothing prohibiting a team from trying.

Primi. what you posted is a very different scenario, with a completely different rationale, from what Fangraphs proposed. What Fangraphs proposes does fit the rules, but they propose nothing involved with draft picks in any way.

As for the Fangraph idea, I'm not sure it has any practical value. It reminds me of some of those convoluted fanboy trade amalgamations we hear at times, where the idea has multiple teams jumping through wild hoops in order to cater to some fanboy trade-completing goal. In real life, looks to me like there are typically going to be better options for one or more of the parties involved.

In theory, just the right situation could theoretically occur to fit their idea. But in the vast majority of cases, one or more of the parties will be able to do better without going through this, with the biggest fly in the ointment being the fact that a free agent player gets to make whatever deal he wants with whomever he wants.

David. It is my understanding there is no draft pick compensation if the employer of a free agent, in my example the Astros. Based on this, the Astros could sign Greinke or another of the 8 free agents who received a qualifying offer, and flip the newly signed free agent to another team for prospects without sacrificing a draft pick. I don't endorse this tactic, but from my reading of the rules it is available.