View Full Version : Rangers trade Pena :(
01-14-2002, 12:11 PM
I really felt Pena had a future with tthe Rangers. Hopefully these's guys we're getting in return will be able to have an impact. The A's seems to have been pretty high on this Mario Ramos guy. And he's a pitcher so that's always a plus for the Rangers. Still sad to see Pena go though i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif .
Rangers trade Pena in 6 player deal. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0114/1311062.html)
01-14-2002, 02:09 PM
i don't think pena had a future with the rangers at first base..i believe this is a big reason why he was traded..
why else would they move texiera to first base?...for one reason.. they thought more highly of blalock and texiera than they did of pena.
i see pena as being a bit of a letdown..i don't think he'll ever live up to his hype..i just have never seen enough...
an excellent trade..i wouldn't be surprised at all for their new left hander to be in the rotation and look for kapler..maybe catalanoto ...but probably kapler being traded for a starting pitcher.. maybe to the mets
01-14-2002, 02:45 PM
i'm still believing that Kapler and someone else will be gone for Ponson in Baltimore.
All in all, this should be a good trade for the rangers. Tex will be a much better AL first baseman than Pena and our future cleanup hitter. Pena would never be better than a #5 or 6 hitter because of his decent power and high K #s
01-14-2002, 03:04 PM
<< i'm still believing that Kapler and someone else will be gone for Ponson in Baltimore. >>
I agree. That "someone else" being Lamb. I also see Kapler to NY for Chen or Kapler + to Florida for Clement.
I think Helling, Astocio(spl?) and Baldwin are possibilities aswell.
01-14-2002, 05:03 PM
i don't see lamb going right away. If he did, we would not have anyone to play 3rd the majority of the time. I don't want blaylock or tex playing there yet. I would like to see them get a full year in AAA. I think this is the hold up in this deal.
01-14-2002, 05:18 PM
well, the only reason i would think lamb "might" be moved is because they think that blalock would be ready for the majors at the beginning of the season
would i like to see that?
hell yes..i want blalock in here as soon as possible
that guy is freaking unbelievable with the bat.
i'm thinking maybe he might be alot like a george brett..i don't know if he will have the same type of career or anything but this guy will be great
lamb, yes, he'll be gone...but i don't think he'll be gone yet.
i've also thought about the idea of keeping kapler on as the 4th outfielder...since you have guys like greer, gonzalez, and everett in the outfield..all of them have missed their share of games in their respective careers...however, i don't see that..i don't see them keeping an asset like kapler as the 4th outfielder when they are in need of arms...
greer does have a limited no trade clause...however, i would rather see him gone and keep kapler...but i don't think that will happen
look for kapler to be moved....possibly cat, but probably kapler...and i see him going to the mets..
this kinda pisses me off a bit..it would be a good move to get some more pitching in here..but i like kapler..he's a class guy and one of my favorites...but, you gotta do what you gotta do
01-14-2002, 05:41 PM
well murph as far as pena is concerned you were right and i was wrong. Im interested to seed where Kapler will land, i still say dont count out keeping him as the 4th outfeilder for Greer insurance. Greer used to be good 4 years ago, now he sux defensively and offensively.
We need 6 solid players between the outfield, DH, and 1st base. Injuries and days off will require it.
01-14-2002, 05:59 PM
The interesting part to this trade is Fuson was the guy who apparently chose whom we got in return, and he is the man responsible for bringing in all the young talent in Oakland. As far as Ramos is concerned you cant argue against 28-9 with a career 2.88 era. The first baseman Hart ironically enough has comparable minor league stats with Pena. Good young bats for good young arms is something we definately need at this point. I think Lamb will be dealt at the deadline alonf with I.Rod(especially if we are out of contention). Last year was Lamb's first full major league season and he hit over .300, thats pretty impresive, but nothing compared to the talent of Hank B.
01-14-2002, 06:24 PM
We have a history of trading top prospects for magic beans, so I don't know what to think of this right now. I am hoping that the Fuson Factor means it's a good deal. With the team we've got now, the emergence of one pitcher like Ramos could mean a lot.
Was he in AAA last year?
01-14-2002, 09:30 PM
he split time between double and triple A, and figures to factor into the rotation this year. This guy was mentioned the the A's orginization in the same breathe as Hudson and Zito.
The A's were desperate. They needed a new first baseman and they are a low payroll team. I think the Rangers got WAY more than market value for Pena.
There are, of course, differing opinions. (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/42798.html)
By Rob Neyer
I'm not going to write an entire column about today's Oakland-Texas trade, because I'm sure it will discussed again in the Athletics Hot Stove Heater, due in just a few days at this fine web site. But summing up the deal in six words ...
Billy Beane has done it again.
Not enough? OK, how about this ...
In acquiring Carlos Pena, the Athletics have vaulted from being great candidates for a disappointing season to being great candidates for unseating the Mariners atop the American League West.
OK, so it's not nearly so cut-and-dried as that. But the difference between playing Carlos Pena and, say, Scott Hatteberg at first base is something in the neighborhood of four wins, assuming of course that Pena develops as most of us think that he will. You probably already know that Pena has been outstanding in the minor leagues. But you may not know just how those numbers translate to the major leagues. Well, here are the Major League Equivalent (MLE) Statistics for Pena's last two seasons, as published in the just-published (and indispensable) "Ron Shandler's Baseball Forecaster":
Level OBP Slug
2000 AA .391 .512
2001 AAA .372 .513
Those numbers, for the uninitiated, are supposed to represent the level of Pena's major-league talent; his minor-league numbers in those seasons were, of course, even better. And from those MLE's, we can assume that Pena will, if given a chance to play, do something roughly similar; maybe a bit better, given that he's only 23 and figures to improve.
If the A's are going to compete for a postseason berth in 2002, they need to replace some of the runs they lost when Jason Giambi departed for the bright lights and the big payoff. But as every baseball fan this side of Timbuktu knows all too well, the Athletics operate under severe budget limitations, which means that if the A's are going to have great players, they're going to be great young players. And Pena, unlike any of the players the A's sent to the Rangers, has a good chance to be a great player.
01-15-2002, 12:35 AM
and that is the reason rob neyer is a writer instead of a farm manager... Pena while good is a far cry from being able to carry the A's offense on his back as well as Giambi did.
01-15-2002, 10:02 AM
exactly FCC, pena is good, but he is no savior. IMO, He was the 3rd best prospect in our organization behind Blaylock and Tex. In essence, we traded our "#1 prospect" for the A's #1, 2, 9 and 12th rated prospects according to last season's Baseball America. Not a bad deal in my eyes. Don't forget about the power hitting 1st baseman, a CFer with good power and D, and a very good defensive Catcher that we picked up as well. All of them are at a very high level (AA or AAA), and all of them have produced in lower levels.
01-15-2002, 12:18 PM
i completely agree..
pena was the third best prospect the rangers had at the corner infield positions..
texiera is probably #2
and blalock definitely #1
there was no place for pena on the team
in my eyes, the trade was a steal
the rangers got the A's
and #11 prospect
the #5 prospect was the #1-2 prospect just last year but he dropped a bit after struggling his first season in AAA...but, that is a fairly routine occurrence.
this trade was good for both teams..but it was a steal for the rangers
obviously, crippler, our "prospect" numbers don't quite match-up
which...is because you're using baseball america and i'm using Fuson.
however, baseball america is wrong in calling Pena the rangers #1 prospect when the rangers basically gave his future job to a kid that had never took a swing above the collegiate level in texiera.
...pena may be good..but he didn't fit the rangers plans in the future.. blalock will be great and texiera will probably be about as good as pena...
ramos..he's a winner..
01-15-2002, 04:31 PM
teixera is going to be a stud and some considered him ready to jump straight from college to the big leagues. I think we will give him 1 year at AAA first.
01-15-2002, 08:04 PM
murph, I like your prospect #s better than mine, and I trust Fuson. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif BA can be kind of a rag sometimes...
FCC, everything I'm hearing is they will start Texiera at AA next season and start Blaylock at AAA, unless Hank has an incredible Spring. As much as I would like to see Blaylock in the bigs, I think starting the season in AAA would be best for his development (he's only 21). I'll go on the record saying he won't stay there long...really going out on a limb there aren't I?? i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif I've also heard the Brett comparisons, murph. If he is even half the player that brett was, we have ourself a stud.
01-15-2002, 09:21 PM
well, i hope blalock gets every chance he can to win the job this spring
and with oates and narron out and fuson, narron, and hart in...i think he will get that shot
oates and melvin were always a little reluctant to turn over the reigns of any position to a young guy
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.