YES!!! - Beckett traded to Boston - Done Deal per Gammons!!!

[three staR]

Originally Posted by mh2365

25 years old and has averaged 25 starts a year over the last 4 years. Going to a team who has been known in the past NOT to overwork their pitchers (Pedro started what once every 10 days?) instead of being on a team who blows out young arms all the time.

Blalock is a decent player but his stats have gone down 2 years in a row now. Danks could be good, but that's the thing Beckett is good, Danks could be good. No guarentee. Rangers made a mistake on this one plain and simple. Now history may prove that wrong but going on what is known right now .... Rangers made a mistake.

Yeah, I think the Rangers made a mistake as well. Danks COULD be good but Beckett is already a good player and I don't think Lowell is much worse than Blalock. I like Blalock though, but I think the Rangers missed out on a good deal. They were probably just holding out to try to get a lower offer but it hurt them instead.

[DiMaggio5CF]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

1. Hardly, they made a good offer, better than the Red Sox, and it was rejected.

2. Beckett isn't the only option.

3. The Rangers offered John Danks, the best pitching prospect in their minor league system, along with Hank Blalock.

The way I heard it, it was the haggling over the prospect that was holding up the deal. I thought the Rangers refused to give up Danks or Diamond, which gave the Marlins time to talk to the Sox. If they had thrown in either pitcher, the deal would have been done immediately, the way I heard it.

If the Rangers refused to offer the prospect, shame on them for letting a prospect hold up a deal that would have made their team so much better. If the Marlins rejected the prospect, shame on them for taking the worse offer.

But then again, Hanley Ramirez costs less than Blalock, and the Marlins seem much, much more concerned with cutting payroll than making good baseball deals.

Bottom line, the Sox made out like bandits from this.

[ozziethesaint]

Originally Posted by mh2365

25 years old and has averaged 25 starts a year over the last 4 years. Going to a team who has been known in the past NOT to overwork their pitchers (Pedro started what once every 10 days?) instead of being on a team who blows out young arms all the time.

Blalock is a decent player but his stats have gone down 2 years in a row now. Danks could be good, but that's the thing Beckett is good, Danks could be good. No guarentee. Rangers made a mistake on this one plain and simple. Now history may prove that wrong but going on what is known right now .... Rangers made a mistake.

That would be a great arguement if Beckett's biggest problem was arm injuries, but in reality he never seems to be able to shake the blisters. which isn't cause of overwork

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

The way I heard it, it was the haggling over the prospect that was holding up the deal.

You heard wrong. The Rangers offered Blalock and Danks on Sunday.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by three staR

Yeah, I think the Rangers made a mistake as well. Danks COULD be good but Beckett is already a good player and I don't think Lowell is much worse than Blalock. I like Blalock though, but I think the Rangers missed out on a good deal. They were probably just holding out to try to get a lower offer but it hurt them instead.

The trade boils down to Beckett for Blalock....... That's a push.

And Lowell for Danks. 32 year old to be third baseman coming off his worst season in ages for the Rangers number one pitching prospect, moving into his age 21 season. Nice pickup for the Marlins.

The Rangers didn't panic and offer the moon when another team entered with an inferior offer. Good for them. Not their fault the Marlins made a mistake and chose the lesser talent haul.

[DiMaggio5CF]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

You heard wrong. The Rangers offered Blalock and Danks on Sunday.

Well you seem to be a Rangers fan, so you probably kept on top of it more than I did. The only reason that the Marlins shouldn't have taken the Rangers deal was Blalock's salary, but you'd think they'd be able to re-trade him for a few more prospects.

So it basically comes down to . . . are the prospects that Blalock would bring better than Hanley Ramirez? The minor leagues are not my forte, but I'd think yes.

Personally, I'd rather have Diamond than Danks, but I'd think if that was the only sticking point, they'd work it out.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

Personally, I'd rather have Diamond than Danks, but I'd think if that was the only sticking point, they'd work it out.

I'd rather have Danks because he's two years younger. In 2007, when he's the same age that Diamond is right now, Danks will be in the big leagues, most likely.

[three staR]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

I'd rather have Danks because he's two years younger. In 2007, when he's the same age that Diamond is right now, Danks will be in the big leagues, most likely.

Does it really matter? If they'll plan on riding out the arbitration for them or trading them before they turn to FAs, then it really doesn't matter how old they are as long as they produce.

[Dark Horse]

darkhorse,

As an outsider, i thought the proposed Marlins deal would be a steal for Florida. After all Lowell and Beckett have had injury problems. Both have, or will have soon, big salaries. And the Rangers would be giving up two younger players.

Why are the Rangers in such a hurry to trade Blalock? His salary can't be that big. Do they have another prospect ready to take his place? Or is there another deal on the horizon?

By the way, i heard asked the Rangers to throw in a second prospect and they wouldn't budge.

... feels like i'm talking to myself.

[mikev]

The Rangers are in a hurry to trade Blalock because he's due a big payday and he's just not that good. Look at his road stats... that .611 OPS isn't exactly fear-inspiring.

[lincarnate]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Why are the Rangers in such a hurry to trade Blalock? His salary can't be that big.

Salary isn't the issue. It's the fact that Blalock has gotten worse at the plate the past two years.

Do they have another prospect ready to take his place? Or is there another deal on the horizon?

I doubt there's another deal, and there's not really a prospect in the upper minors to take his place. Marshall McDougal tore up the PCL in about 250 AB, but he's probably going to be the utility infielder this year (at least I hope) and Ian Kinsler was just added to the 40 man roster, so he could probably do the job if asked, but he's going to take over if Soriano is moved.

By the way, i heard asked the Rangers to throw in a second prospect and they wouldn't budge.

The Marlins reportedly wanted Joaquin Arias as well, who actually has pretty similar stats to Hanley Ramirez but without the Boston hype machine.

[lincarnate]

Originally Posted by mikev

The Rangers are in a hurry to trade Blalock because he's due a big payday and he's just not that good. Look at his road stats... that .611 OPS isn't exactly fear-inspiring.

Blalock is set to make $3 million, $4.75 million, and $5.95 million the next three years, and the Rangers have a club option with a $250,000 buyout for 2009. In the baseball market today, that is hardly a big pay day.

[lincarnate]

Originally Posted by three staR

Does it really matter? If they'll plan on riding out the arbitration for them or trading them before they turn to FAs, then it really doesn't matter how old they are as long as they produce.

Except that Danks has better potential because of his (arguably) better pitching at the same level at a younger age.

[DiMaggio5CF]

Originally Posted by lincarnate

Except that Danks has better potential because of his (arguably) better pitching at the same level at a younger age.

Youth doesn't always mean a better potential. Just because a guy reaches his full potential faster doesn't mean that he has more potential overall.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Danks and Diamond. But if a guy's ready for the Majors at 21, good for him. Another guy might not make it until he's 24, but if he's just better when he does make it, who cares? Twelve great years is better than fifteen good years, IMO.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

Youth doesn't always mean a better potential. Just because a guy reaches his full potential faster doesn't mean that he has more potential overall.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Danks and Diamond. But if a guy's ready for the Majors at 21, good for him. Another guy might not make it until he's 24, but if he's just better when he does make it, who cares? Twelve great years is better than fifteen good years, IMO.

Ahh, well, the flaw in this reasoning is that great players are identified by the level at which they play in their early twenties. If someone is ready for the majors at age 21, they are much more likely to continue to get better and become a great player than the guy who isn't ready until 24.

[Mark Guest]

The Rangers have soured on Blalock because his lack of development vs left handed pitching, his subpar 3rd base defense and the fact that he tails off at the end of the year.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by DiMaggio5CF

1. Youth doesn't always mean a better potential. Just because a guy reaches his full potential faster doesn't mean that he has more potential overall.

2.I'm not saying that this is the case with Danks and Diamond. But if a guy's ready for the Majors at 21, good for him. Another guy might not make it until he's 24, but if he's just better when he does make it, who cares?

1. That's pretty much exactly what it means. Players who are able to play at an equal or higher level at an earlier age have have far more success as a group.

2. That player that is unable to make it until age 24 is much less likely to star. There are exceptions, but talent wins out for the most part.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

darkhorse,

1. As an outsider

2. i thought the proposed Marlins deal would be a steal for Florida. After all Lowell and Beckett have had injury problems. Both have, or will have soon, big salaries. And the Rangers would be giving up two younger players.

3.Why are the Rangers in such a hurry to trade Blalock? His salary can't be that big. Do they have another prospect ready to take his place? Or is there another deal on the horizon?

By the way, i heard asked the Rangers to throw in a second prospect and they wouldn't budge.

4. ... feels like i'm talking to myself.

1. Outsider? I thought you were a native.

2. Beckett's main problem seems to be blisters, which seems to be less of a problem with each passing year. He had some problems with his shoulder this season, IIRC, but the Marlins shut him down and he'd have to pass a physical anyway, to complete the deal. Beckett's workload at the major league level has not been steep at all. I haven't a clue what might have ailed Lowell this year. He'd been a fooking stud the previous two years and a fine player during the course of his career. Blalock has yet to reach those heights, and there are questions now if he ever will.

Blalock and Beckett are the same age. The main thrust of the deal was these two players of the same age, then the old 3B for the hot young pitching prospect.

There was some speculation the Marlins may have asked the Rangers to include AA shortstop Joaquin Arias but Jon Daniels wouldn't have accepted that deal. I don't really believe the rumor, anyway.

3. The Rangers are in no hurry at all to trade Blalock. It was just necessary, in this instance, to deal talent for talent. Blalock and Beckett would probably command similar money in arbitration. Lowell would have taken Blalock's spot for two years. That's plenty of time to develop a replacement, Johnny Whittleman perhaps, or seek one outside the organization.

4. ???

[ozziethesaint]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

1. Outsider? I thought you were a native.

2. Beckett's main problem seems to be blisters, which seems to be less of a problem with each passing year. He had some problems with his shoulder this season, IIRC, but the Marlins shut him down and he'd have to pass a physical anyway, to complete the deal. Beckett's workload at the major league level has not been steep at all. I haven't a clue what might have ailed Lowell this year. He'd been a fooking stud the previous two years and a fine player during the course of his career. Blalock has yet to reach those heights, and there are questions now if he ever will.

Blalock and Beckett are the same age. The main thrust of the deal was these two players of the same age, then the old 3B for the hot young pitching prospect.

3. The Rangers are in no hurry at all to trade Blalock. It was just necessary, in this instance, to deal talent for talent. Blalock and Beckett would probably command similar money in arbitration. Lowell would have taken Blalock's spot for two years. That's plenty of time to develop a replacement, Johnny Whittleman perhaps, or seek one outside the organization.

4. ???

What's wrong with Lowell? let me try and explain it, he's old, sucks, and has a huge contract.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by ozziethesaint

What's wrong with Lowell? let me try and explain it,

he's old,

sucks,

and has a huge contract.

He'll be 32. Check.

Had an off year after two fabulous one. Miss.

9 million a year for 2005 Lowell is bad. It's a bargain for the previous two years. Texas had plenty of room to take on that salary to improve the team.