Who Could Be Paired with Gerald Laird?

by Ian Casselberry on Nov 8, 2008 10:00 AM EST in News Comment 15 comments

Here's what we know: The Detroit Tigers are looking for a catcher. The Texas Rangers have a surplus of catchers, and would like to trade one. We also know that the Tigers are interested in Gerald Laird, but might not have the young starting pitcher that the Rangers would prefer in trade.

Or do they? Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News has trade proposals for the three teams he deems serious contenders with whom the Rangers could make a deal: The Red Sox, the Florida Marlins, and the Detroit Tigers. And here's his idea for what the Tigers could give up for Laird:

Don't think Laird alone could get the Rangers Jeremy Bonderman and his two remaining years at $12 million per year. Rangers would probably have to include at least one other player, probably a pitcher to make these talks more serious. Now, if the Rangers were willing to take a flyer on lefty Nate Robertson, who is coming off a terrible season, they might have something to discuss. Might even be able to ask Detroit about picking up some of Robertson's remaining contract. I like Robertson more than a lot of people because he's a ground ball guy and because he's had some pretty decent numbers in Arlington.

Would it be worth weakening one aspect of the team to try and bolster another? Are the Tigers a better team with Laird at catcher and without Bonderman in their starting rotation? Bondo is at best Detroit's #2 starter, perhaps #3 at worst. Who would fill that void in his absence?

Of course, I'd be totally on board with dealing Robertson, but wouldn't Detroit clearly have to eat some of Nate's contract in that scenario? (Laird made $1.6 million last year, and isn't eligible for free agency until 2011.)

What would the Tigers be getting in Laird? Last year, he batted .276/.329/.398 with six homers and 41 RBIs in 381 plate appearances (in 95 games). On defense, he threw out approximately the same number of baserunners as Brandon Inge (27%) but allowed 13% fewer passed balls and wild pitches.

If this is something the Tigers were interested in, who is the second player the Rangers could include in the trade? Over at SB Nation's Rangers blog, Lone Star Ball, there are several interesting suggestions, along with mixed feelings on such a potential deal.

So what do you think? Would you give up Bondo in a deal for Laird? Or should all trade talk begin and end with Robertson?

0 recs | Comment 15 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

BONDO STAYS

in my opinion bondo should remain a tiger. i believe he will come back and have a great yearand should be #3 behind verlander and galaraga. all trades should end with nate or dontrelle.

by KF7628 on Nov 8, 2008 10:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Since when the **** is Gerald Laird Johnny Bench? I don’t like the thought of trading for him at all, especially if there’s three years left on his contract.

by BigDaddyJC on Nov 8, 2008 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Laird

has 2 years of arbitration left. No contract as of right now.

by Keynes on Nov 8, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Laird/Robertson

Laird not a bad catcher and I would love to see Robertson get traded. But the Tigers do have a problem concerning depth with their starting pitching at the MLB level and at AAA. After Verlander, Bonderman, Galarrga, Miner and then who ( Robertson, DW, Bonine or Lambert)? What happens if their is an injury to the starters? If the Tigers sign a starting pitcher or a good quality reliever than can replace Zuyama. Then put Zuyama in the rotation and that long shot too. Then the trade of Robertson has a better chance. Tigers main problem is pitching and ss. I have heard nobody is willing to fork out 75 million for overrated K-Rod and $40 million for Furcal (sore back).

by Barry2 on Nov 8, 2008 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Crazy talk!

You’d have to be insane to trade Bonderman when there is no one to plug his hole in the rotation.

waynefontes.com

by BigAl on Nov 8, 2008 10:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

There is absolutely no way Bonderman should be traded for Laird. Bonderman still has a lot of upside. In fact, I’m expecting him to get back to the 2006 version of Bondo this year. I don’t think Laird is much better than some of the crappy free agent catchers available.

by LPanas on Nov 8, 2008 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed at all levels. Trading Bondo for Laird is an incredibly stupid idea. We close one small hole while opening a massive one. Laird also just isn’t that good. I mean, he’s fine defensively but we’re not talking overall package like Martin, McCann or Mauer. I actually wouldn’t mind a Nate for Laird deal, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the Rangers and we’d likely have to eat a ton of salary.

As far as pairings go to make a Bondo trade more enticing, there really isn’t anyone who is ML ready that profiles to match Bonderman’s potential. There are a few guys in The Rangers farm system who are intriguing but no one who makes me want to do this.

If we want to get crazy with The Rangers I say we go after Saltalamacchia or Teagarden.

Though that seems just as unlikely as this ridiculous deal for Laird.

by MacRae on Nov 8, 2008 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

On Lone Star Ball

We were discussing the possibility the Tigers being interested in either Vicente Padilla or Kevin Millwood, being that both of them have expiring contracts (assuming Millwood doesn’t hit 180 innings, which is very do-able if management wants). It’s not unreasonable that one of those two be involved if we’re taking back Robertson or Willis.

I think the general consensus is that getting Bonderman would take us giving you guys a just-below-top-shelf prospect (probably someone from our #10-15 range, which is a pretty nice group of kids to pick from) along with Laird, and probably a AA/AAA inning-eater as well (we do have a number of those). Most folks didn’t consider that a good match.

I’ve wondered what would be a good match to give to get Brandon Inge to the Rangers. I’ve heard that the Tigers want to go into ‘09 with a lower payroll than ’08, so I’d have to assume your F.O. would be open to moving him, particularly if one of our under-control catchers went out in the deal.

by Keynes on Nov 8, 2008 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’d love to send you Inge. Love it. The only problem is that we don’t really have a readymade replacement and would have to take a chance with Larish or possibly platooning Larish and Hessman. I’d actually be Ok with that but it’s the kind of risk the Tiger front office doesn’t usually take.

That being said, considering Inge is an overpaid utility player with two years and nearly $13m left on his contract he could probably be had for very little, if only to shed some payroll.

I actually think Inge for Laird isn’t the craziest thing. Both of them are in the majors because of their defense, Inge arguably has a better bat and he’s put in 5 full seasons of work. Laird has barely two seasons as a full time catcher and was awful at the plate in 2007. I say this only because I think The Tigers wouldn’t want to eat any of Inge’s salary to get him.

by MacRae on Nov 8, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Inge....

Inge is my boi, and as for MacRae calling him a utility player….he was used that way last year, but he is one HELL of a third baseman (just no bat). Inge is probably the best athlete on the field at any given time, regardless of who the other team is, and he is a “good” guy. I think that you make a lot of sense with the Tig’s taking Padilla or MIllwood to even out the salaries. Either one would work for me, as long as it was Willis or Nate. I like Nate a lot too, but he did himself no favors this year.

by Zappatista on Nov 8, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But if it weren’t for Inge’s contract he’d be a utility player. Major League regulars should be able to field and hit and Inge only does one, though he does it extremely well. He would be so much more valuable as the ultimate utility guy with his ability to play nearly every position on the field. Kind of like Nick Punto with a better bat or Ryan Raburn for that matter. As a starter he’s not a whole lot more valuable than they are yet he costs twice as much. Yes his defense is brilliant but his bat all but completely drains that value.

On the bright side he defense is so good that all he really has to do is hit at league average to keep up with the value of other AL 3B. He doesn’t even have to clock 27 HR. All any Tiger fan should ask from the guy is to hit the flippin’ ball to right field every once in a while and go deep around 15 times. It would also help if he could hit righhanded pitching again. He had a massive platoon split in ‘07. If he can repeat his 2005 performance I’d be a very happy camper.

If he keeps hitting like this he either needs to be platooned at 3B with Larish (who can’t hit lefties) or sent to a team that’s willing to let him suck the overall value out of that position.

by MacRae on Nov 10, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Depends

Bonderman for Laird? No. Bondo has shown flashes of being a top of the line pitcher. Sure, he can’t seem to learn to throw a simple changeup or make it out of the 1st inning without allowing a run…but he still has great stuff when healthy. If Texas were to throw in a high level prospect, then I’d be for it as long as DD had a deal with a decent free agent starting pitcher on the back burner.

As for Nate? Take him. No catcher needed. Just take him.

http://designaterobertson.blogspot.com

by Rogo on Nov 8, 2008 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs