With Toronto's recent trade and signings its clear they are making a push for the AL east. They are clearly still behind the Yankees, Orioles and Rays. Looking at there roster it appears they still have a hole to fill at second base. I dont see there recent signing of Isturis to be the long term answer.

Would a trade of Ian Kinsler for a catching prospect A'rnaund and a centerfielder like Bonafacio or Raja Davis help both teams. In Toronto KInsler would not be required to lead off and he should benifit from playing on turf both offensively and defensively. This trade would open provide the Rangers with a catcher and a lead off hitter who can steal some bases.

Surely they wouldn't take on his contract. I just have a feeling Ian is a ranger for life.

I think if you replace D'Arnaud with one of their other catchers there's a chance. They aren't trading D'Arnaud for anything less than a young, potential/established superstar or several well above average regulars as that's what he's likely to be considered by the end of the coming season. I do very much like the idea of trying to trade for Bonifacio though. He brings a ton of versatility and a Bonifacio/Andrus top of the lineup would be a lot of fun to watch. That said, I don't think Arencebia and Bonifacio would be a good enough return for Kinsler as he's still one of the top 4 or 5 second basemen in the league and will continue to be for at least the next few years. Perhaps a more significant trade along the lines of Kinsler, Sardinas, and Perez/Ogando for D'Arnaud and Bonifacio might be somewhat enticing but even that would perhaps be a bit short on value for Toronto. It's not that I'm opposed to trading Kinsler but I think we tend to sell his value short in these forums regarding how the rest of the league sees him.

Love me some Bonifacio.

Don't want to trade Ian to Toronto, and, for the last time, they probably don't want his contract. I know they just took on $150m or so in debt, and this would be another $75 on top of that. And the Rangers have no incentive to offer any salary relief.

Stop suggesting Ian trades. Even if you don't like him, he's probably not going anywhere.

Fact remains, the Rangers have to get some catching in here. Obviously, this is being Captain Obvious; but with Napoli being looked at and Soto being so-so, I would think that catcher is a position that, right now, would be at the top of the list for Texas.

The catcher role is probably the most important role to fill (because right now our backup is Luis Martinez, versus Martin Perez likely being the 5th starter as of today), but I don't think it's necessarily the first one they should fill. It seems like Greinke may decide his place around Winter Meetings time, and I think the Rangers should and will wait for that before any major acquisitions are made (I'd guess that means anything over about $5m for 2013). Chances are we'll either re-sign Napoli or we'll trade for somebody. I don't see a whole lot of catchers on the FA market that get me even remotely excited. If it's not Napoli, and possibly even if it is, it can wait until the Greinke situation is resolved.

this is not a new thought, Bleacher Report hac suggested an Ian for D'Arnaud trade
. Toronto does have deep pockets, remember last year's YU bidding war where he was headed to the JAYS. Currently, it is not even a given that Travis can play in 2013

The Rangers are saying they are very unlikely to trade Kinsler, simply because his value is at an all-time low. You want to sell when it's high, not when it's low, and they are working under that guideline. (Same applies to Cruz and Holland, from what I hear.)

Forget about d'Arnand. That's not happening. Unless Profar is included in a deal for him, he's not going anywhere.

I like many other have serious doubts as to what the motivation would be for trading Kinsler. Sure, we could shed $70M over the next 5 years, but for what Kinsler brings to the table, that figure is a bargain.

The fact remains: If you trade Kinsler, what do you do with your middle infield situation after the 2014 season. Elvis will move on, and we'll be left with Jurickson Profar as our only viable option up the middle. Perhaps Luis Sardinas is ready by that, but that's a big IF.

Amen, eric. You can't put a price on Ian's body language.

Hopefully Magadan can get in Kinsler's head and help him that upper cut swing and turn him back into using the whole field like when he first came up....

Comments about Kinsler's value being at an all time low (or Olt), or Murphy's at an all time high are silly to me. We seem to think that GM's with vastly superior tools and metrics operate player evaluation like a middle school playground where whose cool and hot can dramatically shift from moment to moment.

Kinsler is a top 25 fielder in all of baseball over the last few years. He had a down year. Players have down years. He's plenty valuable. He's highly likely to outperform his contract, and given the way FA has moved- other teams know that Kinsler is still most likely a bargain.

Kinsler for D'Arnaud isn't crazy. Unlikely? sure. But an all-star 2nd basemen still in his prime for an injured projectable catcher isn't insane.

are you sure you're an aggie bc that was possibly the most reasonable post I have ever read...

"Comments about Kinsler's value being at an all time low (or Olt), or Murphy's at an all time high are silly to me. We seem to think that GM's with vastly superior tools and metrics operate player evaluation like a middle school playground where whose cool and hot can dramatically shift from moment to moment. "

Rather than offer us lectures about this stuff, maybe you should call Jon Daniels and tell him how life really works for GMs, Eric. Apparently he's pretty uninformed about such things, because he made the very statement that they are unlikely to trade Kinsler, Holland, Cruz etc because their value is down at the moment and it's not smart to "sell low." But what would he know about these things? I'm sure he'll welcome your tutelage - and since he is actually working in such areas, he needs to be brought up to speed.

^you just went full Feldman

kins for dn'a is a potentially good trade for both sides. kins boosts tor as they surge for al east competitiveness, and they can afford kins cause he is, in fact, cheap, and tx values up the middle talent as much as any club in baseball, and knows that catcher trumps 2b. but i don't think kins is enough to get that deal done, or so much better than bonifacio that tor thinks it's worth while.

and if it comes to gutting the talent pool for a young stud, give me giancarlo over dn'a.
i think this team might be waiting a year before it makes it's biggest moves. next year:
andrus for price
olt & the farm for stanton
no upton's, leonys is our center fielder

Not sure what the quote has to do with your ongoing attack on me, David, because I didn't write it, but okay.

My voice on this board comes with the experience of following the team since '96 when I was a little kid, nothing more. I'm still pretty new to the sabermetric community, but of what I know, I feel I know it pretty decently. I've followed sports for such a dominant interval of my life that I'm not willing to just read everything the columnists write and proclaim it as fact. With the Rangers especially, I'm more inclined to side with conspiracy theory than I am in pulling the wool over my eyes. You prefer the latter, and that's cool, too. I think we're on opposing sides with just about every topic, so the people whom agree with me really agree with me, the people who agree with you really agree with you, and the trolls will be opposite me roughly 100% of the time.

I truly appreciate your banter, because we come from such diametrically opposing spheres of influence. I just hope you're able to keep it up and not flame out like a bunch of others who've made missions out of trying to tear down every little thing individual posters write. There's a burial ground on BBTiA of posters who kept trying and trying and trying before they finally succumbed to the fact that they simply would never be able to win.

I'm not saying this is a competition between you and me, or you vs. anyone or me vs. anyone; these forums are built for intelligent baseball discussion spread out across each individual perspective. I think you add to that strength. A lot of posters, Marktown, Rangersbourn, ProfarMVP, Andy, Scooby, RFan, Marco, DJCahill -- I've had disagreements with all of them, sometimes heavy disagreements, but I'd like to think a mutual respect has always been there. It has from my perspective.

So yeah, do what you do. If it gets you off to nitpick my posts so you can make vague attempts to prove yourself by challenging me, have at it. I deal in the objective data and pattern of what has already happened. So far you've only dealt in the subjective, and make it appear like you've never heard front offices lie before. The shelf life of that formula is extremely shallow, so best of luck, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Eric, my apologies. I had a brain typo on who wrote that.

Back to the point I was making ....It's laughable that when I note that JD says values are down for Kinsler et al and now is not the time to trade them, we get some sort of lecture on how GMs don't think that way.

Eric, as for your feedback towards me personally, I'll address that because you said a lot of things there that are off the wall. There's a disconnect between your perception of who you are, what you know, and how you interact with others in this forum, versus the way others perceive it.

> What you :think" to be true and your opinions are not "objective" things, no matter how deeply you think they must be true.
> When people take a different view than you, they aren't necessarily wrong for doing so. You may be dispensing your lectures at someone who knows things you don't know, or who's right when you are wrong.
> Your take on what could or might happen is not necessarily always accurate - yet you lecture those who don't see things as you do, as if your pov is the only possibility.
> The endless lectures you dispense with regularity to everyone else make you come off as a condescending know-it-all rather than someone who necessarily has a clue.
> When you twist or exaggerate someone else's views to try to "win" discussions (and you've done it repeatedly with me), it doesn't make you smarter, it just shows you're trying to prove something rather than engage in two-way interaction here.
> If you think I'm following you around nitpicking your posts, you should go back and take a closer look at who is opening these discussions between us. (In this case, I addressed you only because I mistakenly THOUGHT you attacked what I had said here. It wasn't some sort of gratuitous shot.).When you attack what I say, yes of course I reply. (Not saying I haven't EVER addressed you first.) But the idea that our interaction occurs because I follow you around looking for ways to nitpick your posts? Um no.
> You may think of yourself as "the smartest guy in the room" on stuff you think you know - but I'd suggest you have way more to learn than you think you do.

There's room for all of us here to share our own wisdom and insight. I've learned over the years that if you want respect, you get it by giving it easier than by demanding it or trying to show others up.

Peace.

^ And David hits the nail on the head.

I respect you, Eric, as you do bring a lot of substantial value to these forums. I've rarely commented or critiqued your logic or "objective points," merely the way you present them. In a discussion, baseball related or not, you must ALWAYS be willing to fully change your mind in favor of the other if they are more correct. Otherwise, you'll have your "winning" mentality where each person take turns bashing each other with their perceived truths tying to knock the other out. That doesn't work. All people are asking here is that you respect others the way we respect you, in that, we present our case, you listen, you present your case, we listen, and collectively, we decide where the truth is. If you start a post by telling someone why their wrong, you've missed it and are on the fast track to a derailed forum. So honor us all by reading what we right, finding the truth in it if any, and then simply present what you think and let others decide.

Now that thanksgiving and Xmas decorations are here I feel beholden to give a few words of support to the "underdog." Eric is easily one of the half dozen or so frequent contributors with exceptional baseball insights. His writing style is often acerbic, which plays well, at least to me, as a distinguishing trademark to his writing. Sometimes the words get a little personal. That may not be my style or yours, and I don't condone it but I do accept it. In most instances it is interesting, funny, or both. I can almost always catch his style before the signature.

And since this is an Internet forum, allow me add a completely unrelated matter. Driving yesterday I heard the end of a Dan Patrick interview with Torii Hunter. I always ragged the guy in LA, but he was witty and funny. He was asked if he went to his kids games incognito. He responded "I am no incognegro!" It was great. I wish he were in the ranger clubhouse.

kins for dn'a is a potentially good trade for both sides.

No it's not. That trade is terrible for Toronto. Trading Ian and a $75m debt for d'Arnaud and his years of club control would be ridiculously bad for them.

they can afford kins cause he is, in fact, cheap

No he's not. He may provide surplus value over the life of his contract, but he also might not. Ian is many things, but cheap is not one of them. Not even close to cheap.

if it comes to gutting the talent pool for a young stud, give me giancarlo over dn'a.

I agree. But don't hold your breath for that one.

andrus for price

If you told Friedman you wanted Price for just Elvis, this year or next, he would have trouble containing himself laughing. Price would probably cost almost as much as Stanton.

So Eric logs onto his "alt" Primo to lend himself support.....hilarious!

Did you see that Beasely catch? How about the rap on Bud and Do today?