Rangers, Tigers Talking Trade?

Could catcher Gerald Laird (pictured) be Detroit-bound? - Samara Pearlstein/MVN.comAs they often say, where there's smoke, there's fire -- and this Thursday morning missive from MLB.com's T.R. Sullivan strongly intimates that business is about to pick up in Arlington:

The Rangers are discussing a trade with the Detroit Tigers that would involve catcher Gerald Laird, according to Major League sources.

Sources said the two sides are talking but nothing is close. It should be a topic of conversation at next week's Winter Meetings in Las Vegas.

[...] The Rangers appear more motivated to trade Laird than Saltalamacchia or Teagarden.

Jon Paul Morosi of the Detroit Free Press affirmed the Tigers' interest in Laird yesterday, suggesting that Detroit has coveted the 29-year-old backstop -- who figures to bank something in the neighborhood of $3 million through salary arbitration in 2009, and will be eligible for free agency after the 2010 season -- for "quite some time," and is better positioned asset-wise to acquire Laird than Diamondbacks catcher Miguel Montero.

Newsday's Ken Davidoff reported on Sunday that the Mets inquired into the possibility of trading for Laird earlier this off-season, though it's unknown to what extent those talks progressed (or if they even did at all), and there doesn't presently appear to be much in the way of buzz in that sector regardless.

Neither of the potential principal pieces mentioned by Sullivan as possibilities to go back the Rangers' way in such a deal - mid-20s right-handers Chris Lambert and Zach Miner -- are terribly captivating. Miner's lifetime 18-15 record and 4.22 ERA (107 ERA+) in the majors belie his greater problems with the strike zone, which appear to be twofold: first, he doesn't really get the ball across the plate enough (just 59 percent of his 2,027 pitches thrown in 2008 were good for strikes, though his walk rates somehow remain in the vicinity of league average), and second, he has thus far proven incapable of converting his solid stuff -- consisting of a mid-90s heater, a low-90s cutter, and a pair of mid-80s secondary offerings, according to Miner's Pitch f/x player card -- into passable strikeout rates.

Lambert, a first-round pick (19th overall) of the Cardinals in the 2004 MLB First-Year Player Draft and the player to be named later in the June 2007 trade that sent Mike Maroth to St. Louis, was deemed the Cardinals' fourth-best prospect three winters ago by industry publication Baseball America -- which praised his "91-94 mph fastball, good change-up and potentially dominating curveball," but criticized his sloppy mechanics -- and appears to possess a bit more upside than Miner, but likely wouldn't represent an improvement over fellow 2004 first-rounder Eric Hurley going into the 2009 season.

Of the three Latin American right-handers tabbed by Sullivan as possibilities to "enter the discussion," 25-year-old Guillermo Moscoso (deemed the Tigers' 10th-best prospect by Baseball America two weeks ago) is perhaps the best suited to immediately help the Rangers' big league product, though more probably as a middle- or late-inning reliever than a starting pitcher in light of his past shoulder issues and apparent lack of a quality secondary pitch:

Moscoso has a quick arm and a fastball that reaches 91-92 mph with late riding action that makes it a swing-and-miss pitch. He can also use his fastball to handcuff hitters and force easy popouts. His delivery has some deception and hitters have trouble reading his pitches. He's aggressive in the strike zone and confident on the mound.

[...] Some club officials say Moscoso resembles former Tigers prospect Jair Jurrjens, a flattering comparison. If he can stay healthy and develop his secondary pitches, Moscoso could be a No. 3 or 4 starter in the majors. He could reach Detroit at some point in 2009.

In 86.2 innings split between High-A Lakeland and Double-A Erie in 2008, Moscoso fanned an eye-popping 122 batters and yielded just 21 free passes en route to crafting a superb 2.70 ERA and 0.93 WHIP, good for a nigh-incomprehensible strikeouts-to-walks ratio of 5.81. Texas would likely demand more for two years of Laird than simply Moscoso by himself, but there's enough mid-level pitching talent present in the Tigers' farm system for the two sides to strike an equitable deal.

All that said, don't set your heart on anything being completed before the onset of baseball's winter meetings next Monday in Las Vegas. Boston has a greater quantity of intriguing arms to offer Texas than Detroit does, and it's improbable the Rangers will part ways with one of their most valuable trade chips without first ensuring that they have maximized their return.

And from the "For What It's Worth" department: ESPN.com's Peter Gammons wrote on Wednesday that the Blue Jays, effectively financially paralyzed by the slumping economy, were "out of the hunt" for free-agent outfielder Milton Bradley, and boldly predicted that the Rays, in addition to a slew of other teams, would not be entering the "$10-plus million free-agent league for bats." Tampa Bay and Toronto were thought to be Bradley's most enthusiastic suitors just a matter of days ago.

Said one anonymous general manager to Gammons: "There's no question this is a dual-market situation"The corner bat/DH market is flooded, and the stock market is drowning. Not a good combination, not when pitching rules the market."

If I'm Bradley, the Rangers' arbitration offer is beginning to look more and more appealing with every passing day.

Comments

[briant]

If Bradley does accept, it is certainly not the end of the world. If he can stay healthy in 2009 he will be a Type A FA in 2010, and the Rangers would likely get two picks for him. The team also gets his production in 2009, which will hopefully be close to 2008's. Few if any flies on that.

If he can't stay healthy, there's still a good chance he maintains Type B status. The Rangers would too many DH types on the bench/DL unless Hank is traded or Cat is released. Anyone doubt that even if he spent half the year on the DL that, at 3 times Cat's salary, MB could be 3 times as productive?

[JDolla$]

I'd take Moscoso and Miner for Laird - hell, we could even throw in an FCat for an added bonus! :)

[Joey Matschulat]

Well, since publishing this earlier today, Sullivan has updated his article to suggest that the Reds are also in deep on Laird:

The Reds' most appealing young pitcher is reliever Joshua Roenicke, a hard-throwing right-hander who was 6-2 with a 2.82 ERA, 13 saves and 71 strikeouts in 61 innings between Double-A Carolina and Triple-A Louisville this past season. He appeared in five games for the Reds in September, and he is high on the Rangers' list.

Other Reds pitchers of interest are right-handed starters Daryl Thompson and Homer Bailey, and relievers Carlos Fisher, Pedro Viola and Robert Manuel. Viola is a left-hander who was converted to a starter at the end of this past season, and, in seven starts, was 3-1 with a 2.45 ERA in Double-A. In 33 innings, he gave up 27 hits, nine walks and struck out 30.

Baseball America tabbed Roenicke as the Reds' ninth-best prospect before the 2008 season, issuing this assessment of the now-26-year-old right-hander:

Strengths: Roenicke dominates hitters with a live 93-95 mph fastball that he'll run up to 98 mph on occasion. His fastball has late movement that adds to its effectiveness. He pairs it with an 87-89 mph cutter that has so much action that one opposing manager described it as a splitter. He's an excellent athlete and has the fearless approach to close games. His mechanics are clean.

Weaknesses: As expected from a recently converted outfielder, Roenicke is still an unpolished pitcher. His control is just adequate and he'll have to sharpen his command before he makes it to the big leagues. He's still learning about setting up batters and proper pitch selection.

Serious power reliever, albeit with some control issues that he still needs to overcome. He's extremely adept at avoiding the long ball, which obviously plays well in the Rangers' eyes. He almost strikes me as a more advanced version of Warner Madrigal (right down to the converted outfielder bit).

I suppose the question then becomes whether you would trade Laird for a promising, yet unproven reliever with closer potential?

[Michael Gleason]

I don't think we should trade Laird alone. We have a great number of pretty valuable trade chips. There's little sense in trading them 1 by 1; that will only help us slightly by netting us more appropriate "pretty valuable" players. It makes sense to wait on trading until we know whether we have what many teams might covet: Milton B on a 1year deal (or an even easier time trading Murphy, Byrd, and Blalock, keeping Bradley until Max or Smoak rises to the occasion.) Once we know, it makes the most sense to fill all the holes possible for fewer teams in hopes of finding (and breaking in) "a FEW good men."

[Robert Bolyard]

So how does America's economy affect a Canadian based ball club? Is Canada's suffering as well? You would think this would be the perfect time for a team like Toronto and Motreal (oh wait) to throw money at players who would normally be hesistant to play north of the border, but if the money will certainly entice them.

As for Laird, I don't really know a whole lot about the Tigers system other than what I know from Baseball America and that's generally that they have little past Porcello. The most enticing big leaguers they have are Cabrera, Verlander and Bonderman and some pitcher who used to play for Texas. In any case I would think Cabrera, Verlander and Bonderman are pretty untouchable as is Porcello. They're probably just looking to deal lower prospects or cut some of their massive salary.

[Jon Page]

Looks like we'd much rather deal with the Reds than the Tigers here re: Laird. The Tigers just have nothing in their system that impresses very much much - Moscoso and Lambert are interesting I suppose, but I think we'd be able to do much better dealing with the Reds, and I also wonder how willing the Tigers are to part with any of their "better" arms considering how pitching-poor that org is right now.

As far as the Reds go, everyone would no doubt like to make a run at Homer Bailey (I'd dance a jig if we could get him for a deal centered around Laird) but Roenicke sounds pretty good, and I'd also inquire about Matt Maloney. Heck, I also wouldn't mind getting one of their OF prospects (even though I know we're looking at pitching right now).

[Michael Gleason]

Ergo Cincy.

[Joey Matschulat]

To answer your question Robert, the precarious state of America's economy has adversely impacted the economy worldwide; the United States is Canada's biggest trading partner, and then there's this from Reuters today:

Canadian job losses likely began in earnest in November as the economy stagnated, following three straight months of surprisingly strong employment growth, analysts said on Thursday.

Employers are expected to have shed 25,000 workers in the month, according to the median forecast of analysts in a Reuters poll. They also forecast the unemployment rate would rise to 6.4 percent from 6.2 percent in October, the highest level since September 2006.

"Much of the job losses are likely to come from the ailing manufacturing sector, though we also expect to see some declines in service sector employment," said Millan Mulraine, an economics strategist at TD Securities.

November would be only the third month in all of 2008 with job losses, with the others being June and July.

Canada's economy grew at a robust 1.3 percent in the third quarter. But economists forecast that it slid into recession as of the fourth quarter and will continue to contract through at least the second quarter of next year. The slackening demand will lead to more layoffs during that period.

"In the coming months, we are likely to see further deterioration in labor market conditions as the Canadian economy softens in the face of a major U.S. and global economic recession," said Mulraine.

The Canadian dollar is also beginning to dramatically weaken against the U.S. dollar, further exacerbating the Blue Jays' financial problems.

[Michael Gleason]

It seems to me the Reds need Byrd as much or more than they need Laird. For both how about Bailey alone or Roenike plus Valaika (to convert from Ss to 3B at AA)?

[Michael Gleason]

p.s. At redlegnation there's an Organizational depth chart worth mulling over. It links to each player's stats on MiLB I believe. For Laird and Byrd and Benoit (which should complete their winter shopping list) maybe we can get Roenicke, Valaika and Viola-- or Bailey & Viola.

[JDolla$]

Whatever happens, I suppose it would be nice if Texas could get someone who could actually pitch (and be effective) in Arlington all season for Laird. That's what this team really needs. It does seem mostly pointless to trade him for a couple of middling prospects who may take a couple of years to get to the big leagues to see what they can do - we already have about 20 guys like that. I say "mostly" because I guess the other benefit to trading Laird, no matter what you get for him, is that it frees up crucial playing time for the other guys. From what I've read, I'd be interested in Lambert. Joey says he might be about as good as Hurley - that might not be such a bad return for a guy like Laird. I also think Miner might be a decent get - although I suppose we already have quite a few "swingman/mopup" types. I guess we'll see what's cookin' next week.

[JDolla$]

By the way, just to blow off some steam, I'm so sick of Red Sox fans and their crap (they feel entitled to whomever they want, devalue guys on other teams while embellishing the value of their own prospects, and mostly behave like complete [insert profanity here]) - it would make me so very pleased if Texas pulled a surprise deal out of nowhere that sent Salty to the Yankees, so they'd have their noses rubbed in it about 9 times a year, or however many times they play each other.

I'd also like to echo Joey's sentiment from an earlier post - a question that needs to be raised as much as possible to expose these ridiculous prejudices: Why is everyone so "up" on Buchholtz, and so "down" on Bailey? Aren't the essentially the same case?

[Jon Page]

That's an Interesting point Jdollas makes on Buchholz vs. Bailey - especially considering Bailey is almost 2 years younger than Buchholz is. I'm just going off memory here (too lazy to find a link or a scouting report at 5 AM), but I believe the main reason people are so down on Bailey right now is because of his reputation for being "uncoachable" - which, if it's true, poses a huge obstacle to anyone who tries to fix him, be it the Reds or anyone the might trade him to.

Also, as bad as Buchholz was in the majors this year (6.75 ERA, 1.76 WHIP and the lowest K/BB ratio of his entire professional career - 1.76) Bailey was even worse (7.93 ERA 2.09 WHIP and a 1.06 K/BB), albeit while accumilating less than half the innings (36.1) than Buchholz (76). And there is some hope to be found in Buch's 4.82 FIP, I suppose, whereas Bailey's 6.41 FIP offers much less solace. Furthermore, Bailey struggled during his 45 innings worth of MLB action in 2007 as well, whereas Buchholz of course flashed some genuine brilliance in his September '07 cup of coffee (his infamous no-no being a part of that).

So based on what little I've heard about the two comparatively (and from the stats) I think the consensus that Buchholz > Bailey probably comes from (A) Bailey's "uncoachable" reputation, (B) the fact that Buchholz has the superior numbers (both MLB and minor league) and most importantly (C) the fact that Buchholz seems to simply have better stuff and makeup. That said, Bailey still has a lot of talent - if the price isn't too steep I'd be more than willing to take a chance on him, hoping that perhaps the "Nolan Ryan effect" and a change of scenery (and perhaps the extra motivation of pitching in his home state, who knows) are what is required to get through to him.

I'm sure Jason could offer much more insight into the matter than my early-morning stat gazing and vague memories though - I'd really be interested to hear his comparison of the two.

[Jason Parks]

Bailey vs Buchholz

Both pitchers have incredible stuff. I'll break it down by pitch:

Fastball: Advantage Bailey. His heater has more life, although he lacks command
Curve: Advantage Buchholz. Legit plus-plus pitch. A 70 grade pitch. Arguably the best curve in Boston's org.
Change: Advantage Buchholz. Legit plus pitch. Excellent downer movement.

Both pitchers have some issues with command. Bailey's mechanics are inconsistent and as a result he has suffered some injuries. Make-up is also an issue with both players, although I think it applies to Bailey more than Buchholz.

Conclusion: Bailey is a nice arm, but Buchholz is a great arm. Buchholz isn't going to wear a Rangers uniform. Bailey might.

[JDolla$]

Thanks Jon, Jason, and Joey.

J$

[Joey Matschulat]

Good discussions, all (by the way, for anybody curious, our traffic at the new site has far eclipsed what we were able to accomplish at MVN)...and with further regard to the Blue Jays' financial difficulty, this was penned by MLB.com's Jordan Bastian yesterday:

The Blue Jays have suffered from a decrease in sponsorship, as well as a weakened Canadian dollar, leading to layoffs within the organization and forcing the team to re-evaluate its direction -- payroll included. Toronto isn't in a position to pursue any top-tier free agents, though the team may consider some more cost-effective solutions on the open market.

So Toronto won't be signing Bradley, I guess. There's some thought that the Cubs could be in on Bradley (and it really wouldn't surprise me if they ended up with him, though that would take an enormous leap of faith since there's no DH in the National League to protect his legs), and there's still Tampa Bay lingering on the periphery, but the list of potential suitors isn't looking particularly strong right now.

Prediction: If Texas brings back Bradley either via arbitration or by striking a two-year deal or some such, Blalock's gone.

[Robert Bolyard]

I think to evaluate Bailey for Buchholz, you have to look at what we'd be forced to give up for them. Laird for Bailey straight up may well work which would add us a young pitching prospect (albeit with a lower ceiling than Clay, and purge us of a contract we don't really want and a player who doesn't really have a place on the team). Buchholz is going to cost us Teagarden plus another (likely pitching) prospect like Poveda. There you're giving up our starting (or co-starting depending on how you value him) catcher of the future, and a good pitching prospect who should see time in Arlington by 2011. Granted Clay might be a top of the rotation arm, but he likely won't be this season, and if everything goes according to plan, but next season Hurley should have secured himself a spot in the rotation, and big time prospects Main, Holland, and Feliz should be knocking on the door if not already in the Show. Then you just fill in with your Feldmans, Harrisons, McCarthys, Rupes, Diamonds, whatever. My point of course, is that Texas played pretty well last season and I think people see a window for us to make a playoff push, but the problem is that window isn't really there. The Angels are going to make some big time signings in the offseason, likely another top starter to replace Garland, and Texieria. I'm also not sure they don't come back away with K-Rod too. They're simply too talented of a team to overtake this next season, and the wild card may be equally out of the question when you consider the AL East has 3 teams arguably more talented (Yanks, Sox, Rays) who all should be primed to fight for that wildcard spot, not to mention again the Twins.. the Athletics could always rebound, the Jays could be a dark horse. I for one am simply not for mortgaging the future in an attempt to get a one year quicker head start. I would love to add another arm, but right now with Millwood, Padilla, McCarthy, Feldman, Harrison, Rupe, Diamond, A.J. Murray?, Nippert, we certainly have enough arms to throw into the rotation this season and at least evaluate as opposed to dealing players before we've properly looked at them (Galaragga comes to mind). I like the rebuilding plan towards 2010 or 2011. It makes sense and I can see it developing. Laird doesn't make a whole lot of sense in that. So if we can deal him for a pitcher great. I don't want to lose Teagarden, and honestly I'm not sure I even want to love Salty since I think he can improve his value greatly with more major league at bats.

[Michael Gleason]

I mostly agree w/ Robert: we can lose this year of development, and risk the window's ever opening by trying to win too soon, or we can congratulate the Angels already on their '09 season, and then start beating their aging over-priced roster in '10, with the window opening ever wider in '11 and '12.

But again, if we can add to a deal more of our valuable extras like Laird, i.e. Blalock, Byrd, Padilla, even Murphy, to gain ourselves the choice between 2 Bailey-types or one Buchholz-type-- or the choice between 2 high-ceiling relievers vs. one high-ceiling starter, I think we gather as many of those pieces as possible (No Saltys or Povedas, but truly extra players whose ceilings we know, as Robert argues) and go for the single highest-ceiling starter available. After that, if we still have some of those pieces left, great: then go for the lesser-likely high-ceiling unknown arms (and very young 3B and OF prospects).

By the way, how does SF's Sanchez profile in comparison with the Cincinnati arms?

(I'm going to double-post this, since the thread has moved to today's Laird update)