Friday Morning Rangers ... Questions?
Joey Matschulat
Will the Texas Rangers manage to pry Clay Buchholz (pictured) from the Boston Red Sox' grasp? - scottwsd/Flickr.comIn keeping in line with the marginally more provocative theme of the website as of late (in terms of inciting more fervent and intelligent baseball discussion, that is), I've opted to temporarily forgo throwing out the standard cavalcade of miscellaneous early-morning notes that may or may not be tangentially related to the Texas Rangers and instead switch things up with a trifecta of open-ended questions, all of which have been borne from some sort of outside stimulus in the last 24 hours:
● I'm not really sure how to summarize this latest missive from the great Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com (and really, he is great -- I honestly think we take him for granted sometimes, in part because he's so ridiculously prolific), so I'll reprint it here in its entirety:
The Red Sox's willingness to trade right-hander Clay Buchholz for Rangers catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia does not figure to be any greater now that the team has signed free-agent right-hander John Smoltz.
Buchholz remains an important part of the Sox's future, and the value that club officials sign to him should not change due to the addition of a 41-year-old veteran coming off major shoulder surgery.
Smoltz, Brad Penny and Tim Wakefield are signed only for next season. Penny also had health issues last season. And Josh Beckett is a free agent after 2010.
The Red Sox, rival executives say, are more open to trading Michael Bowden and Class AA reliever Daniel Bard in a package for Saltalamacchia. Bard, the team's No. 1 pick in 2006, is coming off a big season and might be at peak value.
"They're doing everything they can to trade him," one rival executive says.
The Sox and Rangers have not spoken since the winter meetings in early December.
But I thought Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein wasn't willing to trade Bowden, a stance adopted in large part on the strength of his projection? Hmmph. Complicating matters further is the delayed return of Smoltz, who evidently isn't expected to return to the majors until May or June after undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery last June; that fact alone obviously amplifies Buchholz's immediate value to the Red Sox as a safeguard against further attrition befalling Boston's talented, albeit risk-laden starting corps.
Momentarily setting aside Rosenthal's assertion that the Rangers and Red Sox haven't spoken since early December (which I'm not exactly inclined to believe for one split-second, although I'm certain that's the company line being emitted from executives in both organizations), the question is relatively straightforward: is the proposed two-player package of Bowden and Bard enough to acquire Saltalamacchia straight-up? Should this apparent enthusiastic willingness on the part of Epstein to purge his farm system of Bard while his trade value is at a perceived maximum be regarded as a major warning sign going forward?
● While a beleaguered Terry McGuirk (Braves CEO) loudly bemoans the stunning defection of an iconic figure in Atlanta baseball to the Northeast, internal and external pressure is reportedly building on the Braves to make a big free-agent splash, as Newsday's Ken Davidoff writes:
The Mets have made Lowe an offer of three years and $36 million, and earlier this week, they felt that to raise that package would constitute bidding against themselves. They met with Boras on Wednesday at Citi Field and didn’t make up much ground.
Now, however, the Braves have more than a pitching deficit. With Smoltz gone, they have a public-relations crisis as well. That could spur them to exceed the Mets’ bid and possibly even offer a fourth year to Lowe, 35.
Lowe's representative, the inimitably calculated Scott Boras, continues to seek a four-year, $64 million pact for his client, a price tag which will likely not be met but which can be employed to drive up the value of the contract he ultimately does obtain. More intriguing are the potential ramifications of such a signing on the Rangers' trade opportunities; if, for instance, the Braves eventually shell out something in the vicinity of $45 million for Lowe (which is certainly within the realm of possibility), that presumably takes them out of the running for the likes of veteran rotation reinforcements such as Kevin Millwood and Vicente Padilla (whom, as you've no doubt heard, purportedly need to be dealt to clear the necessary payroll room to sign free-agent right-hander Ben Sheets).
We all know the book far too well already on Sheets's fair market value, the medical concerns that persistently loom over his head and the slim possibility that perhaps we're all badly overestimating what he's actually going to pull down in an increasingly bizarre free-agent market (though I've seen it vaguely intimated in more than one place over the last several days that his contractual demands are excessive). Thus, the question becomes: does Texas realistically have any chance at inking Sheets without shedding payroll, be it in the form of Millwood, Padilla, Hank Blalock, or somebody else? Have these thousands of words I've hammered out on the Sheets situation over the last several months been all for naught all along?
● And, speaking of Blalock, Jim Reeves of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram openly speculated about something I mentioned in passing three days ago, that being the apparent immovability of Blalock (and his healthy $6.2 million contract for 2009):
[...] That would be ironic, if true, because going into the off-season it appeared that Blalock's relatively inexpensive (for a power-hitting corner infielder) deal would be a positive factor in helping the Rangers move him and not a negative one.
I'm not at all convinced that picking up Blalock's 2009 option was exclusively about turning back around and trading him down the line (although I do suspect that somewhat played into the organization's thought process), but assuming that he was retained with the overriding intention of later attempting to convert his perceived offensive value into prospects, doesn't this constitute some degree of market miscalculation on the Rangers' part, especially if the financial burden imposed by his salary upon the 2009 payroll impedes the pursuit of a value-driven acquisition such as Sheets?
Bonus question: do I ever sleep?
Reader Comments (15)
hey joey,
a little off topic here; but, could we talk about early training camp, World Baseball Classic, and the beginning of the regular season?
So we will have spring training; then Young, Kinsler, Cat and who else go to play in The WBC?
How do you think this will effect The Rangers?
On question #2, can we sign sheets with out shedding payroll...
The Rangers (in the Tom Hicks/JD era) have historically said that they are willing to pay out higher dollar for the right free agent. I have not heard anyone say anything like that this year, but I have to think that it is still true. What if Sheets can be had for 2 yrs at 10 mil per? That is kind of hard to pass up. What if hes willing to do a one year 14 mil contract? The real problem comes if Sheets, Millwood, and Padilla are all healthy, (which we all know is not going to happen) how do we develop McCarthy, Harrison, Feldman, Hurley, and Holland and Feliz as the year progresses. In the end unless Sheets price drops so low we, can't aford not to sign him, I think we will move Millwood or Padilla 1st.
On question #3, Blalock's option...
I have always been of the opinion that the Rangers want him as the DH. If the right option came along for a trade, I'm sure they would take it, but I think the Rangers will be hard pressed to find a DH with OPS in the high .800's at his price range. And I think the Rangers really like seeing their home grown talent succeed.
my $.02
What am I missing on Ben Sheets?
He's coming off of an injury. His medical records are filled with concerns. He wants way too many millions of dollars. And, in recent years, national league pitchers, even stars, haven't fared well in the American League, facing a DH every outing. Sure, Sheets has great stuff - when his arm or shoulder or back isn't hurting, but so have other top National League pitchers who failed in the American League.
What does Sheets have, other than surgical reports, that Millwood and Padilla don't have?
Or does everyone simply think that the grass is greener on someone else's mound?
I think one indication that Daniels and co. have a firm perspective on the free agent market is their patience with giving an offer to Sheets. For a long time, the Rangers have been linked to Sheets and have been predicted to sign him by sources like our friend Rosenthal. Now I think all of the rumors cannot be baseball writers needing to fill up room on their columns, even though some definitely is.
So Daniels waiting on Sheets' price to drop into a more manageable strata tells me the Rangers are aware of what Sheets is worth and are holding the line. Every day I don't hear news about another team looking to sign Sheets, I am more convinced Sheets is coming here on a one year deal for 11-13 million, which does not sound too prohibitive.
The braves are freaking out. The rangers are not, and cooler heads usually do prevail.
So we're not going to get Buchholtz in exchange for Salty. If Boston agreed to give us both Bowden (a guy who might be MLB ready, and projects as a middle rotation starter) and Bard (a big, hard-throwing righty who projects to be a closer) for Salty, would you guys do that?
I would.
What does Sheets have, other than surgical reports, that Millwood and Padilla don't have?
----------------------------------
He has a history of pitching at an extremely high level.
In nine season prior to joining the Rangers, Millwood had produced 6 seasons with an ERA above 4. He was coming off of a really good year, but Millwood has never been considered an Ace.
Padilla's posted an ERA in the mid-4's during the two seasons prior to joining Texas. He was never an Ace.
Sheets has posted four consecutive seasons with an ERA in the 3's. When healthy, he has proven to be a much better pitcher than Millwood or Padilla.
Actually...Sheets has 5 years in a row with an ERA under 3.85
And during inter-league games, against AL teams, he has posted a 3.55 ERA for his career. He is light-years above Millwood/Padilla.
Charlie Zink, anyone?
Although at first glance a proposed trade of Salty for Bowden and Bard looks enticing, doubt looms in my mind based on the fact that Bowden has only logged 5 IP in the majors, so it remains to be seen how he'll fair against advanced hitters. Although he has a huge ceiling, he has unconventional mechanics, and that kinda scares me.
Bard has lit up the gun, but at the same time struggled with control, and his confidence. His secondary stuff needs improvement, and he struggles with keeping the ball down. These factors also scare me.
To me the question is really what is the fair market trade value for Salty?
cool man
Question #1: I still see a Bowden/Bard package as settling right now. I do like Bowden a lot more than Justin Masterson (Masterson reminds me too much of Kam Loe) but I'm not a Daniel Bard fan at all - in general, I'm not really a fan of one-pitch AA relievers with major control problems, really. I'd still like to believe that JD can reel in Buchholz if he plays his cards right, but if I had to name a lesser, more "fair" return from Boston, I'd probably say Bowden/Nick Hagadone seems like the best value to me, even considering Hagadone's coming off TJ.
And while I'm making random judgements about another teams prospects: to answer Briant's Charlie Zink query: 28 y/o's with only one day of ML service time don't do much for me, even if they are knucklers. Perhaps especially if they're knucklers (*cough*RADickey*cough*).
Question #2: I still think we have a chance at Sheets, but that may just be the optimist in me talking. I still think we'd shed payroll eventually if we where to sign him, but I'd like to think we could sign him without having to shed payroll first. Does that make any sense?
Question #3: Yeah, we definitely screwed up if the plan was to trade Blalock after picking up his option. The last two seasons have utterly destroyed his trade value, and the Rangers should have known another hot-hitting September wasn't going to do that much to revitalize it. The only thing is though, as good as the Rangers have been in estimating the market recently it's almost hard to believe they'd make that big a mistake.
And as for the bonus question: by now we all know you're really a century-old vampire, Joey. ;)
My best guess with Blalock, is that we as Ranger fans, have to hope he has a good first half of the season, remains healthy, and becomes a hot commodity come trade deadline. I sure wish the Rangers could of moved him to Florida before Boston jumped in... and with the history of Blalock it makes me more compelled to feel the Rangers need to move him now. In hindsight... being as it is always 20/20, I would sure hate to see that picking up Blalock's option could potentially cost us Sheet's. Dwindling as it may be, I still remain optimistic on that front as well.
Keep the vampire post rolling... WE LOVE IT!!!
Where's the Vamps???
Sorry, no vampire posting tonight -- work at 10:30 in the morning. Jason will have another fine Scouting Series piece out early though.
I'll chime in with some thoughts later.
LOL... Thanks Joey!!! Did you see the trade rumor from ESPN Radio's Bruce Levine involving MY to the White Sox for Dye/Poreda??? Now that is some serious stuff... although it's probably smoke.
Life as a musician is a lot of vamping... many late nights. This Dracula will wait 'till the morning and looks forward to Jason's report.
Good Night...