Mike Napoli And The Ripple Effect
Joey MatschulatOne of the first revelations to strike you after studying the market of any professional team sport for any length of time is that every signing/trade has consequences -- some good, some bad, some inconsequential (heh), some involving playing time/roles, some involving performance, some involving the soothing of bruised egos, and so forth. The manner in which those consequences affect the team ultimately determine the perceived success of the transaction, and, to a lesser degree, the success of the team and the employment (or lack thereof) of the people who presided over the transaction(s) in the first place. We're all very well aware of how this is supposed to work, even if it doesn't actually always unfold that way.
And generally speaking, the more complex or high-profile a transaction is, the more likely it is to have a wide or significant array of consequences attached. I say "generally speaking" because I don't think the typical trade comprising the exchange of two good, but certainly not great, players has this many different little ramifications across so many areas of the above-stated spectrum:
The Bullpen: There are depth, performance and role ramifications all stemming from the departure of Frank Francisco -- the first two of which likely aren't good for Texas no matter how sunny your outlook may be on things, and the last of which will no doubt infuriate some to no end. A few scarring ninth-inning meltdowns and injuries notwithstanding, Francisco was an above-average strikeout reliever for the better part of his time in Texas and a consistent 50- to 60-inning pitcher that could be deployed in late-inning situations with relative confidence. Aside from the clear and apparent hit to the established bullpen depth, there's also the matter of one of a number of relatively unproven pitchers stepping up in his absence. This could very well happen, but the high variability of relievers and the depth situation is such that you can at least envision this becoming an on-going problem. I'm hopeful that it'll work out, but not anything approaching arrogantly confident.
What is more likely to ruffle feathers is the notion that losing Francisco all but locks Neftali Feliz into the ninth-inning role for the 2011 season -- a proposition that has never appealed to those who want to see him get his shot in the rotation sooner rather than later, or those who inherently believe he can furnish greater value pitching every fifth day. I persist in leaning towards the side that doubts whether this is the right time to pull the trigger on that move, but my position feels a little stronger today, unless you're so mindblowingly confident that you think two ancient southpaws will keep killing it, Darren O'Day will continue to bamboozle the league, Alexi Ogando will handily overcome whatever adjustments the league has ordered against him, and so forth.
The Outfield: The ostensibly poor quality of Mike Napoli's defensive chops behind the plate is such that he probably won't be doubling as Yorvit Torrealba's primary backup, and with that in mind the Rangers -- barring any more wild transactional escapades -- appear to have their 13 position players all but locked in, albeit with no backup plan in center field beyond Josh Hamilton. This would have been the same case had Texas inked Jim Thome or Manny Ramirez, but it's no less unnerving now than it was in either of those cases, and I have to wonder what ends up happening if Julio Borbon falls flat on his face again, and if the Rangers are prepared to incur the risk associated with rolling him out there on an everyday basis in the event that things go awry with Borbon ... again.
The Face: At first glance, this article penned by FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal -- in which he states his belief that the Rangers still want to trade their putative face of the franchise, Michael Young -- prompted me to wonder if he wrote it with the aid of his jump-to-conclusions mat, but hey, it's Rosenthal. He says the Rockies still want Young more than a month after the winter meetings, and I can only presume that's based on actual conversations with Rockies personnel rather than unfounded speculation. The sequence of players pursued by Texas in these preceding weeks absolutely supports the theory that Texas wanted more offensive punch than what their in-house options at 1B/DH could provide, and Young apparently still thinks of himself as a temporary DH ... which is fine and all, because he can think whatever helps him sleep better at night, but where does he think an expanded positional role (e.g. more than 80 games) is going to come from in the next few years? Where does anyone think it's going to come from?
The more I've thought about it, the more I've wondered if this notion I proposed back on December 8th actually does make sense -- is Texas willing to eat a decent-sized chunk of his remaining $40-plus million salary commitment in exchange for expanded roster flexibility over the next three seasons, and not having to be forced into committing no fewer than 550-600 plate appearances in each of those seasons to a player whose bat really doesn't play all that well at first base or designated hitter? Is Colorado willing and able to assume the remaining salary commitment? And if any or all of the above is in fact true, is Texas working under the assumption that they can overcome the P.R. hit and contain fan backlash so long as they keep on winning? Because that final assumption may not be such a terribly misguided assumption, after all.
I haven't yet worked out all the details in my head, but if there will ever be a time for the Rangers to trade Michael Young (and understand that I'm not outright advocating it, nor begrudging your emotional reasons for not wanting to see it happen), this window is the time for it to happen. It almost certainly won't happen, but then we were all thinking virtually the exact same thing before the Rangers signed Adrian Beltre on that happiest of days three weeks ago, and I don't believe it's wise to ever completely rule out any possibility with this team.
Reader Comments (72)
We are talking about a couple of aces in the making in those two guys, Kirkman is going to be amazing and Holland just needs a kick in the ass to be the solid pitcher he has the talent to be. Kirkman's competition will provide that kick in the ass. The rotation is going to be awesome as long as a lot of guys don't get injured, I just know it.
You're eating too man "Scooby Snacks" if you think Kirkman will be an Ace. I see really good #3 as his top end. Still, that's nothing to sneeze at. I see really good #2 as Holland's top end talent.
@Joe:
How many of our kids do you think are going to be "Aces"?
Kirkman
Holland
Feliz
Perez
Scheppers
Erlin
Any others?
Man, that's going to be a sick staff! If we can extend CJ and Colby, that's 8 Aces!
If MY thinks his position playing days aren't over then all he needs to do is beat somebody out.
Young, Borbon and $10M for Kemp I would do it in a second. He would make our line up even stronger, not to mention if Guerrero is still available we would be more inclined to sign him since Young would be gone.
How about Billingsley for Holland, Scheppers, Profar, Erlin and Strop? Oh my...
....Or ask for a trade.
Holy crap there's just rampant wild speculation going on here - no grounding in reality whatsoever. Some of you guys need to get a video game where you can set the controls to allow you to make all kinds of fruity trades, robbing teams left and right of their best players WILLY-NILLY, with no basis in reality regarding contracts, salary, free agency, and age. I can't wait for the season to start, if only to give us a few months of reprieve from this nonsense.
F a N t A s Y b A s E b A l L !
@WWJDD AMEN BROTHER!
Hey guys... I hopped in my truck at 5:50pm and hear Galloway and Mosely talking about MY being traded to the Rockies for Jose Lopez. Is this true? They were talking in absolutes... so my understanding was it's true and they are just trading medicals. IS THIS TRUE?
@WWJDD and Ranger13 - didn't we admit a few posts ago that we ARE in fantasy land... and we're just bored and having fun? Chill out.
Oh, I am pissed! I'm searching everywhere and I see nothing about MY to the Rockies... ARGH... does anyone know what the hell GAC was talking about at 5:45pm or so? They said that Keith Law (or it could've been someone else... it was a guy we've all heard of, that much I know) broke the story. I think I've been bamboozeled.
I'm not a Galloway fan... and if this turns out to be bunk, I'll never listen to him again.
They said that Keith Law (or it could've been someone else... it was a guy we've all heard of, that much I know) broke the story. I think I've been bamboozeled.
I'm not a Galloway fan... and if this turns out to be bunk, I'll never listen to him again.
From the Rosenthal morning report linked in the story: "The Rockies represent the best fit. They wanted Young at the winter meetings. They still view him as a potential answer at second base, according to major-league sources.
"The Rangers would need to include cash in such a deal. They would also need to take back Rockies infielder Jose Lopez, who is set to earn $3.6 million and could assume Young’s super-utility role."
I will be stunned if whatever the hell GAC was talking about was not derivative of Rosenthal's original article. In other words, nothing new.
Scooby,
I know Kirkman's ceiling is considered a solid number 3 but I think he could be an ace. I see a determination in him that transcends his scouting report. As far as Holland goes his ceiling is probably solid number 2.
Joe
PS As far as any of the other guys becoming aces probably not. Maybe Perez and that's about it, too far away to have a clue. As far as me talking up Kirkman call it a hunch. Hes going to be our ace in two years, hes going to have a break out year this year if he gets the chance.
I've heard people mention that CF is a lot of ground to cover in RBPiA but its actually less than a lot of CFs in baseball
@Joey - thanks for the clarification... I'd be interested to know if anyone else caught the same crap from 103.3 and what their take was on it...
Are Matt Kemp or Jose Lopez really what we want in return for MY? Does that really make the TEAM better or are we only concerned with making PAYROLL better? Does Hicks still own this team or does Greenberg, Ryan and the rest of the deep pockets in town? If your going to tell me that trading MY and replacing him with Kemp or Lopez actually makes this lineup better then I want some of the drugs your on. If your going to tell me that trading MY free's up cash for the FO to go after a TORP I'd ask you to show me what statement from the FO backs you up.
The Rangers are not hamstrung by the financial restraints from the Hicks era yet many of you are arguing from a position as if they are. If JD says he has the room financially, which he says he does, then why do we as fans try to argue from a position opposite of those who are holding the pursue strings. (ARod is not a valid arguement. Different owner, different GM).
Galloway is a tool!!!
I still think that MY could fit with a team like the Yankees if he was willing to play a corner OF position. Granderson has seen his numbers slide. Swisher is pretty good but who else is there? A 280BA/350OBA/20HR/70RBI guy which MY is capable of being would look good Yankees outfield
Feldman and MY to a team with huge pitching problems might net something. I don't know what the Yankess have to give in return; but Feldman would be the # 3 starter, maybe the #2 for the Yankees since Pettite retired. It would also relieve the Rangers of two large contracts
Yes, swapping out Young and Borbon for Kemp and, presumably, Vlad does make the lineup considerably better. No, swapping out Young for Lopez does not, but that's not what is apparently being discussed. What is being discussed is that the Rangers send Young and cash to the Rockies, take back Lopez and his $3.6m salary (as a salary offset for Colorado taking Young's contract), PLUS SOMETHING ELSE, where the something else (maybe a prospect or 2? A pitcher? Not sure what) Represents the value the rangers get back.
Seems like a lot of you guys are willing to give up Borbon's good defense in CF and are willing to take on Napoli's average/poor defense and swing-for-the-fences approach. Pitching and defense and situational hitting won the pennant in 2010--that's what it will take to repeat!
Yeah but at some point you do have to hit the opposing team's pitches.
We saw a colossal fail in this department in the WS, with the addition of an absolutely horrendous showing by our defense, namely right field in SF and Third base for the entire series.
We have improved the team's bats. We have improved our situational hitting and bench players. We have improved our defense, especially at the weakest part of our infield.
The only thing we haven't improved greatly on is our starting pitching. And of course that hinges on performances of a few guys that either had bad seasons last year (Feldman, Harrison, Holland) or were not on the team (Webb, Hurley).
Chill out fellers, it's going to be ok.
@Jon. Beating a dead horse, but The Face should become a player coach. Wash is not that young and Young IMO is highly respected and would make a good manager some day???
You must've watched Major League 2 a few too many times as a kid.
Podcast of GAC with Ken Rosenthal talking about trading Michael Young link.
http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4859770/should-the-rangers-trade-michael-young