Too much? Or too little?

A couple of interesting snippets from yesterday, as we continue over analyze the Bonifacio-for-Rauch trade.

First one is from yesterday's Boston Globe online. Seems the Red Sox were interested in Rauch, but Jimbo asked for two of their top prospects:

The Sox inquired about reliever Jon Rauch before he was traded by Washington to Arizona, but the Nationals were asking for top prospects Michael Bowden and Jed Lowrie

For what it's worth, Lowrie (ss) was ranked #5 in the Sox system by Baseball America; Bowden (rhp), ranked #7. So, that would constitute asking for too much?

Next one is a little tidbit from SI.com's Jon Heyman, who reports that, shockingly, Jimbo managed to piss off some other teams who feel he set the bar too low for the relief market as the Trade Deadline approaches:

But a couple executives with relievers to sell expressed annoyance that the Nationals dealt Jon Rauch to the Diamondbacks for second-base prospect Emilio Bonifacio, claiming it wasn't enough for Rauch. "I was surprised that's all Washington got,'' one AL executive said.

So using these two examples as opposite ends of the spectrum (if one is too much, one too little), what would've been "just right"?

Comments

[Dave at Bottomfeeder Baseball]

this deal was "just right". of course GMs with relievers to sell said the Nats didn't get enough. and of course Lowrie and Bowden are too much for Rauch.

Nats fans are really overvaluing Rauch. Closers grow on trees (see: Rauch, Jon). slick-fielding 40 steal guys do not.

[The Nationals Enquirer]

Dave, I'm totally fine with the deal, too. Just trying to get a feel for what would've constituted a "good" deal from the pov of people who hated it...

[Ben]

Everyone thinks they could do good deal. I heard someone mention Cordero for Pelfry last year. Given we've been shopping Rauch for three years I think it's safe to say that we got what we could get.

[The Nationals Enquirer]

Ben, I'm still interested in the timing, though -- it's unlikely other teams were beating down AZ's door for little Emilio. Wonder why Jimbo felt compelled to make it happen Tuesday, instead of waiting until closer to next Thursday? Again, I'm perfectly OK with this deal...

[Ben]

You got me. I can't explain a lot of Bowden's actions. My guess is that the opportunity for Lowery went away because he's become the everyday shortstop in Boston, and no one was that interested. Like I say, it's been three years. But that's only a guess based on nothing.

[Steven J. Berke]

I think it may have had something to do with the Guzman extension--Bowden wanted to get that done rather than take a chance Guzman would change his mind and go on the free-agent market, and once it was, there was no point waiting to trade Rauch for Bonifacio.

[Trevor]

Michael Bowden was ranked #17 in Baseball America's midseason top 25 prospects list (#8 pitcher), highest of any eligible Red Sox prospect. http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2008/266496.html (sub req'd) His stock has risen quite a bit since that organization top 10 list was done in January, mowing down AA competition as a 21 year old. Paired with the now-starting Lowrie, I would say, yes, that would constitute asking for too much.

[ckstevenson]

WHAT ABOUT FLOP? Where is he going? Can we get rid of him? Could we trade he and Lo Puka for a dozen balls? (ha, I wrote balls)