Rangers Notebook: On Derek Holland & The Halladay Possibility
Marlon Byrd laces a second-inning double into right-center field on Tuesday, July 8th.Unexplainable statistical quirk: Entering Tuesday evening's intradivision road skirmish in Anaheim, the second-turned-first-place Texas Rangers were a .239/.306/.401-hitting ballclub with two outs in any given inning in a 990-plate appearance sample, culminating in a sOPS+ mark -- or the OPS of any player or team batting split relative to that of the major league OPS for that same batting split -- of just 93.
Attribute it to random variance, bad luck and/or the adoption of an inadequate plate approach in two-out situations, but the 2009 iteration of the Rangers has not performed well when backed into the proverbial corner in any given inning. Perhaps that statistical backdrop helps to explain why the Rangers' six-run outburst in the top of the fifth inning -- which began with two outs and nobody on base, and eventually proved to be the game-winning rally -- felt even more astonishing than usual, which is misleading in that there is absolutely nothing usual about an inning like that.
Virtually every single contributor to that game-breaking offensive eruption had endured some significant degree of criticism thus far in 2009, from the St. Louis-bound tandem of third baseman Michael Young and center fielder Josh Hamilton to a free-swinging Hank Blalock to a struggling Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who punctuated the rally with a two-run rocket that served as an all-too-convenient reminder of what he can still become. Redemption?
Immense promise alone doesn't win ballgames, but talent certainly does, and for all the challenges this ballclub has encountered thus far this season (from the injuries to the offensive ineptitude to the obvious glaring holes, one of which Texas has already addressed), the one thing which this organization clearly does not lack is talent:
● After previously scheduling 22-year-old southpaw Derek Holland for a Friday evening start against the Mariners, the Rangers have elected to reconfigure their pre-All-Star break starting rotation in light of Vicente Padilla's lingering shoulder soreness and supplant Holland with newly activated flamethrower Dustin Nippert, who allowed three earned runs on seven hits and one walk in 3.2 innings against the Angels on Tuesday evening, and indications are pointing to Holland remaining a major league reliever not only through the rest of this week, but perhaps through the second half of the regular season as well:
"We think Derek's ultimately going to be a starter for us, and a good one at that," general manager Jon Daniels said on Tuesday. "Right now, he may be best able to help the team in the bullpen, given the position we're in, where his stuff really plays up, especially from the left side.
"Depending how things shake out over the next few weeks, he's an option for both roles. A lot of that depends on the health of some other guys and his continued development."
Manager Ron Washington asserts that the Rangers "need [Holland] out of the bullpen [right now]" and proclaims that Holland should be able to properly develop his secondary offerings pitching out of the bullpen, which is plausible if he pitches primarily in a low-leverage, long-relief role where he can tinker with his change-up and curveball with his ballclub either trailing or leading by a significant number of runs, but otherwise seems like a rather shaky supposition on the surface.
The obvious question to ask, of course, is "Will the recurrent yo-yoing of Holland from the RedHawks' starting rotation (Triple-A Oklahoma City) to the bullpen (Rangers) to the starting rotation back to the bullpen adversely affect his development?" Difficult to say. I will say that I'm not terribly enthused about asking a talented young pitcher -- one whom the Rangers' hopes are heavily riding on -- to change pitching roles this many times in the span of three months, but Holland is a tremendously poised, confident and adaptive individual, and I don't know whether anybody can definitively state that this is absolutely a bad thing right now. We may require the lens of retrospection down the line.
The more pertinent issue, in my mind, is why Nippert has been gifted a rotation spot when he's arguably a worse rotation option at this point than Holland; Nippert's massive raw stuff has long hypnotized Rangers followers, and he has certainly enjoyed his infrequent moments of pitching luminosity, but deploying a pitcher who has posted a 6.67 ERA and been shelled to the tune of .269/.364/.480 in 11 career major league starts as your No. 5 starter when you're in the midst of a pennant race strikes me as a pretty dicey proposition. Neither hurler is really optimal as a major league starting pitcher right now, but Holland might well be better equipped right now to give the Rangers the best chance to win every fifth day.
● Regarding second baseman Ian Kinsler's insistence that his swing has not changed and that his uppercut hitting mechanics have not been exacerbated by the effects of fatigue: Should we infer anything whatsoever from the fact that his 2009 line drive rate has plunged to a career-worst 13.8 percent and that his fly ball rate has spiked to a career-high 55.5 percent, the latter of which presently stands as the highest mark in the majors?
● Assuming that the Rangers were to inquire into the potential asking price for Blue Jays right-hander Roy Halladay (whom was notably informed by general manager J.P. Ricciardi that he might be presented with trade possibilities in the coming weeks and months), and assuming that the Rangers were able to construct a prospect-laden offer to Toronto's liking, and assuming that the Rangers were able to clear the necessary payroll space to accommodate the $20-plus million sum that Halladay will command through the final two months of the 2009 regular season and the entirety of the 2010 regular season, and assuming that Halladay were to waive his full no-trade clause, then ... well, then you'd have a deal. But not a moment before.
I recently advocated the espousal of the "go big or don't go at all" approach to baseball's mid-season trade marketplace, and Halladay does indeed embody the sort of ace-caliber pitching talent that the Rangers have previously demonstrated a willingness to pursue (Texas nearly acquired left-handed ace Johan Santana from the Twins two winters ago, with baseball executives on both sides arriving at "agreement or near-agreement" on the players involved, but the deal was reportedly nixed by Santana's reluctance to waive his no-trade clause to join the Rangers), but the crux of the notion of acquiring Halladay is simply that there are so many obstacles to overcome. And two years ago, the capital was evidently there to expand payroll. It clearly isn't there anymore.
If you're prepared to dispense a front-line package of young talent comprising at least two of the Rangers' top 10 players under the age of 24 and additional pot-sweeteners, and prepared to remove Vicente Padilla and/or Hank Blalock from the payroll no matter the cost involved (knowing full well that you'll have to include additional talent to avoid subsidizing a portion of their contracts), and prepared to offer additional monetary enticements to Halladay to convince him to waive his no-trade clause and pitch in Texas, then it's a perfectly wonderful idea. Otherwise, just slam the door on the entire notion right now and avoid wasting your time on something that has virtually no chance of actually happening.
11 Comments | in Analysis, Prospects, The Season
Reader Comments (11)
I also cannot undestand the Rangers affection for Nippert. IIWII, which is a bad ML pitcher. I would rather see Mathis in the rotation than Dustin Nippert.
We've shown we can hang in this division with what we've got right now. Making major moves with a top prospect would be a damaging act to our long-term plans, especially considering this current roster could/should still improve considerably and play up to its potential (Kins and Hammy, esp.). Don't trade Neftali. Or Martin. Or Justin. Just stand pat and cross your Ranger fingers.
Any word on Vlad's exit?
My guess is that Texas deems the bullpen as the biggest area of need right now. By keeping Holland in the bullpen, Texas has a high-end option to help the team escape jams prior to the 8th inning (when CJ would come in). In addition, Harrison should return within a month and could potentially replace Nippert in the rotation, should he fail or be traded.
I dislike the move but if you deem the ML bullpen as a problem area, adding Holland helps quite a bit.
I would say it's less than a 1% chance that TX goes for Halladay, because the ownership uncertainty, Hicks' financial troubles, and the team's desire to hold onto prospects right now.
I would say it's a prudent move, despite how nice it would be to have Halladay for a year or so.
I really don't wanna see the rangers go after (and ultimately acquire) Halladay, I don't think any of the realistic rangers fans even expected them to be competing this year, And why make such a strong commitmen to a 32 yr old pitcher who by the end of this year will have thrown over 2000 major league innings, and the price for arguably the best pitcher in baseball of the past three years would be so high it would require more than two of the top ten guys.
it would be Smoak and Feliz, just for starters, then on top of that borbon and martin perez
even if texas decides that feliz is untouchable well then it becomes a six package player deal.
look i understand that to really use the farm system correctly its about deciding which players are expendable then trading them for major league talent. but lets wait another year for that.
Joey,
What does Toronto want in return for Halladay? Are the Blue Jays still committed to competng for the AL East in 2010? Are they more interested in developing a critical mass of high-end talent at a later target date? Are the Jays simply in a mode of getting the most value for Halladay while they can?
A potential Rangers offer must match the Jays needs. What do you perceive them?
Tex - if you read www.mlbtraderumors.com, all the word coming out of Toronto is that they want a real Texeira-type haul of young blue-chip talent in exchange for Halladay.
That's why I agree with Stephen above - the price is too steep for 1 year & 1 fall of him, no matter how good he is.
Go for Lackey & Sheets in the offseason if you want to pay the price to get some help in here.
I wonder,ifthe Blue Jays are interested in trading Halliday who is 33 ifage would come into the price?
If so, I wonder if the Rangers might not be able to package Vicente Padillia, (after signing an extension) and one top prospect, two pretty good prospects and a project? Toronto is not looking to cut payroll and being able to stay somewhat competitive might look good to them. That is a 5 for1 deal and Padilla is three years younger and a serviceable starter
Great article, Joey. I was surprised by the Nippert change as well. Interesting stats about Kinsler.
If you read/listen carefully, JP Ricciardi has made it clear that 2 prospects plus "sweetners" won't get a deal done. The Jays are expecting 3 almost ready prospects plus, as required, other position fillers. Also, given the Jay's pitching depth going into 2010, their focus is on hitters, not pitchers. So, think in terms of Smoak/Davis, Salty/Teagarden, Elvis and maybe Murphy. And if Elvis is "untouchable," then maybe Borbon and perhaps a pitching prospect like Holland/Hunter/Feliz. That looks like a lot, but it reflects the Jay's bargaining position. Halladay is not demanding a trade (in fact, quite the contrary), there is no financial incentive to trade, nor is there any urgency to trade since the Doc is signed through 2010. Finally, he is the face of the franchise in Toronto, so from a marketing perspective, it really will have to be an overwhelmingly favorable package ito placate the fan base.
Definitely not worth it. If we did that kind of deal (Teagarden, Davis, Borbon,, Hunter & Murphy) or something similar, and Halladay blew his elbow or needed rotator cuff surgery, it would rank with the Sosa/Alvarez, Darling/Terrell and Righetti trades as one of the worst in Ranger history. Not worth the risk in my opinion.