Evan Grant on the 2007 draft and Ranger draft philosophy

by Adam J. Morris on Jun 2, 2007 11:35 PM CDT in News

Excellent, in-depth piece from Evan Grant in Sunday's DMN, on the importance of the 2007 draft, and the issues with the lack of continuity in the scouting department leading up to this point.

I'd encourage folks to read the whole thing, because there's a lot of good stuff there, but some excerpts...

In the first five rounds, they'll make nine selections. They've never had that many choices in the first five rounds.

"It's an opportunity this organization hasn't had in some time," general manager Jon Daniels said. "For a variety of reasons - injuries, trades, attrition and some players graduating to the majors - the farm system is not where we want it to be. This is a chance to add a whole lot of premium talent in a two-day period."

This draft bounty is not just happenstance. This was at the crux of Daniels' plan for building the organization when he took over for John Hart after 2005.

The idea was delicate and two-fold: Try to maintain competitiveness at the big league level while retaining the ability to stockpile draft picks. The hope was the Rangers would win in 2006 and still put themselves in position to rejuvenate the farm system quickly.

And if they didn't win, they'd still have the draft bounty as a fallback. The plan was only enhanced when the Rangers traded Francisco Cordero, Kevin Mench and Laynce Nix to Milwaukee for soon-to-be-free agent Carlos Lee and Nelson Cruz. If Lee helped them overcome the AL West, great; if not, they'd get two picks among the top 40 as compensation.

"Part of what we talked about was putting together a self-contained, self-sustaining system," Daniels said. "We want to have different waves of players that move forward together and graduate to the majors."

* * *

If there is one area in which a lack of continuity and stability has most hurt the Rangers, it may be amateur scouting.

Since 1995, the organization has had six scouting directors, each with a distinctively different taste.

And then there was 2004, when a showdown between Grady Fuson and John Hart became a palpable part of the process, and 2005, when Hart, manager Buck Showalter, player personnel director Dom Chiti and current scouting director Ron Hopkins all jockeyed to make selections. Neither of the Rangers' top two pitching selections from that draft have won a game above the Arizona Rookie League.

* * *

Ron Hopkins, scouting director: The selection of players is ultimately his responsibility. That wasn't always the case. In 2005, the first-round selection of John Mayberry Jr. was made by general manager John Hart. Last year's draft was his first real draft as scouting director.

A lot of really good info on the changes Daniels has implemented, and the guys involved in making the decisions next week.

Tweet Comment 63 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Why did you highlight that part?

by Longhorn on Jun 2, 2007 11:39 PM CDT reply actions

Because...

...the pick has been pretty controversial, and because it was made by John Hart (who is gone), rather than Hopkins (who is running this draft).

by Adam J. Morris on Jun 2, 2007 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions

My problem with the draft

Mayberry is developing at the pace that they kinda thought that he would.

Why was he a first round guy.

Stupid.

Third round? ok, but 17th or 19th or whatever.

Damn

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions

he was a first round guy

because he was a first round guy.

by Longhorn on Jun 3, 2007 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions

That's my problem with the draft

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 1:01 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm going to

wait until after the draft to get into this, especially in light of this article from Grant, but I've been disturbed by the draft pattern you notice over the last five drafts when it comes to position players in high rounds. But basically, it bugs me that when you have position players ranked highly, some mainly because they can hit and some mainly because they have all the other tools and if they can learn to hit they'd be great, the Rangers seem to be one of the main teams picking the latter. Mayberry was some evidence of that, Borbon would be more troubling evidence to me. Hopefully either that won't happen or I'm wrong about Borbon.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Dear God

No Borbon picks, Z.

Knock on some mother f'ing wood, dude!

It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

by thedirkatron on Jun 3, 2007 1:11 AM CDT up reply actions

Yea

I coach college baseball and I see guys drafted every year because they are athletic, and I've seen guys that can really hit, that slide in the draft because they are not athletic.

Doesn't make any sense, especially when you look at the big league level, where teams rarely steal bases.

Also, at the big league level, when your choices are whether to play Cat or Cruz in left, even though Cat has only one tool that is better than Cruz, it is a no brainer...CAT.

So, why have the exact opposite mindset when drafting. The name of the game is hitting and scoring runs, draft accordingly.

I know pitchers are harder, but to me, position players are pretty simple.

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions

You have

seen Cat play the outfield? Right? I don't think he should ever play in the field unless there is a bonafide emergency. He makes Wilkerson look like a defensive specialist. Now, I don't think that Cruz is a major league player at all but Cat isn't either, at least defensively. To me it is a wash. Cruz isn't going to win any awards for his defense but he is light years ahead of Cat in that regard. And so far this season Cruz is outhitting Cat. I'd rather see the Rangers keep Cruz, Diaz and Byrd in the outfield the rest of the season and try to do something with both Cat and Wilk.

by gp on Jun 3, 2007 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions

Yeah

They got Chris Davis in the fifth round, and he's jumped over Low A - from JC ball instead of Stanford - and is performing similarly to Mayberry:

Mayberry - age: 23, .232/.319/.509, 26/55 BB/SO ratio, 30 XBH in 220 AB
Davis - age: 21, .262/.310/.518, 14/64 BB/SO ratio, 29 XBH in 191 AB

I don't know that Davis is a better prospect than Mayberry, but on the surface you seemed to have gotten a very similar player in the fifth round a year later to the one you picked in the middle of the first the prior year. And Davis has a great arm, bats left handed, and is in the middle of a trial as a 3B, which would obviously add quite a bit of extra value.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Yea

It seemed to me that Mayberry was a first round guy because he was drafted in the first round out of high school, his dad was a big leaguer.

He didn't put up much numbers in college, was viewed as a project. He may work out fine, but draft projects later on, not middle of the first round.

And this isn't just a Rangers issue, if they wouldn't have taken him, somebody else would have soon thereafter

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd take Mayberry's numbers with a grain of salt

Tthis appears to me to be a continuation of retraining him to pull the ball with authority; I'll bet you his K's are overwhelmingly on the outside corner and that his HR's are all going over the LF fence. I have a hunch that this is one of those weird developmental things like when they had Volquez throw 45 changeups in a row or wouldn't let Danks use his bender for half a season. They seem to like to pull that crap in High-A.

by mjh on Jun 3, 2007 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions

x

"We want to have different waves of players that move forward together and graduate to the majors."

That quote really stood out, it sounds like what good teams do..

"I like Spankin' Hank"

by miles on Jun 2, 2007 11:45 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah

That's kind of the point of any farm system.

At any rate, if he's saying that collecting these picks were a key part of their overall organizational plan (whether it really was or not), at least you have to figure that they're going to draft for talent rather than bonus value. So that's important.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 2, 2007 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions

so, Z...

what's your take, who would you like for them to take with their 1st 2 picks? Or are you going to wait till draft day to tell us...

by Longhorn on Jun 2, 2007 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions

zywica

luvs him some Borbon.

Heh.

by Adam J. Morris on Jun 3, 2007 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions

You mean Julio Meyer

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 12:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Speak of the devil...

I was reading some scouting reports on Z's homeboy Nick Noonan, and the only thing I could think was that it sounded an awful lot like a description of Drew Meyer.

I don't want any low ceiling "dirt dogs" in the first round.

It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

by thedirkatron on Jun 3, 2007 1:09 AM CDT up reply actions

Whoa, whoa

Noonan /= Meyer

Not sure if you're saying that or that Borbon does, but I don't want anyone disparaging my guy like that.

And for what it's worth, one of the things that was so troubling about Meyer was that all you had to do was watch him swing the bat to know that he'd never hit, and at least with Borbon, I don't think that you can say that. I don't think he'll be that great of a player even if he has good batting averages, and that's a lot of the problem, but he at least looks like someone who can hit a little, unlike Meyer.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 1:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Noonan

the description just sounded a lot like Meyer.

Probably he does have much better swing mechanics than Meyer (I don't know... my computer can't deal with the video on MiLB.com... no Idea why), but it sounds a lot like he's a scrappy little hustler with limited ceiling and little or no power potential.

Sounded a lot like Ramano, Bourgeois and Lemon. Not bad picks necassarily (they all had potential at the time), but I don't want us spending a first round pick on a guy who lacks the potential to be a true star.

Sandwich round? Sure. 17 or 24? No thanks.

It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

by thedirkatron on Jun 3, 2007 1:43 AM CDT up reply actions

First of all

I suggested sandwich round myself, obviously that's ideal. Second, dude, you're crazy if you think that this:

He offers one of the most polished bats in the draft and had emerged as San Diego's top prep prospect, evoking comparisons to Phillies star Chase Utley. While he's not likely to hit for as much power as the former UCLA star, Noonan resembles Utley as an above-average lefthanded bat who profiles best at second base...He stays balanced, trusts his hands and makes consistent hard contact.

sounds like Meyer. I mean Meyer was a tools player, a strong arm with defending as a prime asset. Noonan is a bat, not a tools guy who you hope learns to hit at age 22. If everyone who knows how to play baseball is a Meyer comp, you're closing yourself out on some really good players.

I just don't get your comparison there at all.

Having said all of that, I don't know that he's a great prospect. Like in the NFL where it's a little easier to get a really good offensive guard prospect at the end of the first round or early second than a stud left tackle, it seems to me that you could get value in a guy who scouts aren't enamoured with because he's more of a 2B than a flashy SS, when in reality, quality 2B are just as much of a rare commodity than SS right now.

Not projecting to quite as much power as f-ing Chase Utley isn't exactly a big negative, and this guy, as of a couple of weeks ago, had 51 hits. Nine were HRs (one HR every ten AB), and 42 were for XBH. That's over 82% of his hits for extra bases in San Diego. That doesn't sound like Drew Meyer to me. As a Junior at SC, 28% of Meyer's hits were for extra bases, and his BA was about half Noonan's.

I just don't see any evidence of what you're talking about. Obviously if I thought he was anything like Meyer I wouldn't want him.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 3:05 AM CDT up reply actions

Easy, big buddy

We obviously read very different scouting reports.

You're right... that one doesn't sound like Meyer in the least.

It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

by thedirkatron on Jun 3, 2007 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions

So what

...does the report you're talking about say to suggest comparisons? I can't find any that bring Meyer-like tendencies out.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Meyerlike

sounds very much like Meyerlike

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/events/draft_report/y2007/index.jsp?mc=noonan

by Longhorn on Jun 4, 2007 2:21 AM CDT up reply actions

just got done watching the video

if you notice during his in game ABs, he drops his hands slightly right before his swing...Not as dramatic as Meyer, but i can see after the scouting report and the video the similarities for a Drew Meyer comparison.

by Longhorn on Jun 4, 2007 2:28 AM CDT up reply actions

Sorry

...and I really don't know what kind of player he'll be, but you guys are off base comparing a player whose bat is supposed to be his strength and who doesn't have great defensive tools to Meyer. It's just wrong. He may suck like Meyer, I don't know. But he's not at all similar.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 4, 2007 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions

At 17

I would personally take a long look at Weathers. I suspect that our best options will be one of the HS pitchers, Beaven, Harvey, someone like that. I'd love to get my hands on Parker, but that's doubtful. I'd take Wieters if he fell. I can't make up my mind on Dominguez or Mesoraco, but I'd at least be intrigued by one of them there.

But back to Weathers, I know that everyone gripes about taking relievers that high, and he hasn't been pitching for long enough to be all that polished - plus some of those guys, Wagner, Aardsma, etc. have missed. But this is a fresh lightning arm that has a much, much better chance of impacting your team than a lot of the options available. I'm not all set on him or anything, I just think he'd be an interesting guy to look at, since you have so many more chances to get projectable guys afterward.

At 24 I'd really like Ahrens I think, but there are still lots of arms to consider, and I'd be tempted to look at LaPorta unless I saw for myself that he does seem to have a hole in his swing that isn't very correctable. I might could live with Noonan or Arencibia there as well. It's just a little tough to pin anything down at that point, with as many guys are moving up and down like they are right now.

I still like Brown at 35 even though he's slipped below that some in various rankings it looks like.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 3:25 AM CDT up reply actions

Weathers is becoming less and less likely

to be available at 17. He had another great outing in the first game of the tourney: 2IP, 5K. He followed it up with another effective and scoreless inning in the second game against Michigan.

I'm really hoping some of the tourney pitchers, like Schmidt and Arrieta, zoom past some of the HS pitchers.

People rarely live up to their baby pictures.

by rooster on Jun 3, 2007 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions

I like

that the Rangers are using a best player available approach, and will have more money for bonuses. We can hope Wieters actually falls, and we can get him at 17.

by BHill on Jun 3, 2007 12:09 AM CDT reply actions

Very Interesting

Evan seems to be tellin it like it is lately.
This draft is certanly the limis test for JD"s reign. Reading the article, it's easier to understand the draft embarrassments of the recent (and not so recent) past. adn't realised how many hands/scouts we had tied behind our backs.
Let's keep ur fingers crossed and check back after we see how they do. This draft will certainly eventually put the great Coco trade debate to rest...eventually.

by dog named blue on Jun 3, 2007 12:24 AM CDT reply actions

Hmm

This draft will certainly eventually put the great Coco trade debate to rest...eventually.

Guess I haven't spent enough time lately on NMLR boards to know what tired, overdone debates Seven/whatever other names he's using has going on.

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions

Daniels

I don't see how any real Rangers fans can call for JD to be fired. We need continuity in this organization to move us forward. It's easy to be against someone and there are way too many casual fans that think they could be a better gm. They're are no gm geniuses out there:

-- Beane's money-conscious A's are paying Kendall $13.4 million this year (he has 1 hr and 116 rbis in the last 2+ seasons)
-- Epstein - JD Drew 5yrs/70million
-- Look at the mess of aging veterans and huge contracts that Cashman has on his hands.

my point is, there is no gm "magic", even the guys who are considered the best make big mistakes. Lets give JD and Wash some time to make this team a contender.

by Randy Richardson on Jun 3, 2007 1:02 AM CDT reply actions

No reason now

But if he screws this up, put his head on a stake.

On the other hand, he has the opportunity theoreticaly to be the savior of an organization beginning with this draft

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions

What...

[b/]Daniels
I don't see how any real Rangers fans can call for JD to be fired. We need continuity in this organization to move us forward. It's easy to be against someone and there are way too many casual fans that think they could be a better gm. They're are no gm geniuses out there my point is, there is no gm "magic", even the guys who are considered the best make big mistakes. Lets give JD and Wash some time to make this team a contender.
:

It is easy to see why we should call for Jd's head:

Soriano trade
Young & AG trade

If that is not enough some how he thought we were in it last year and instead of trying to rebuild a little for this year traded for players and not the other way around.

With what we had this year there is no way in hell that we should have traded Danks & Masset for a guy a year ahead of the schedule.

All in all he has done a bad job. If you do not want to fire him because you want to keep the staus quo than more power to you but if someone is just not getting the job done then they just need to go no matter what.

And fuck MY if he is coming out and saying that we need to keep pacth working this thing and perpetubly losing. This thing should have been blown ;ast year.

by sftxfan on Jun 3, 2007 1:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Daniels

The point really isn't to grade JD. I'm sure even he would give himself a D, at best, for trades he has made. Although it's just too early to assess the McCarthy deal yet.

All I'm saying is stick with the plan - instead of scrapping it every 2-3 years and starting over.

"Blow this team up" has to be the most overused phrase. When has that ever worked?

by Randy Richardson on Jun 3, 2007 2:08 AM CDT up reply actions

Insightful commentary...

all the way around.

by benmor78 on Jun 3, 2007 2:09 AM CDT up reply actions

That was sarcasm...

btw.

by benmor78 on Jun 3, 2007 2:09 AM CDT up reply actions

hmm

isn't you pointing out that something you wrote was sarcasm sort of like Samuel Beckett pointing out that his plays were absurdist? Do we really need to be told?

by mjh on Jun 3, 2007 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions

Yah

What kind of idiot thinks his team has a shot when they're two games out near the end of July?

It takes a big man to cry. It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.

by thedirkatron on Jun 3, 2007 2:48 AM CDT up reply actions

plus

We really didn't give up much in those three late trades last year. Cordero has had success, but he was damaged goods at the time and needed a fresh start somewhere else. Otherwise, the other 5 guys we sent in those trades were of very little value.

by Randy Richardson on Jun 3, 2007 3:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Plus

really how much more would we have gotten out of Cordero than Gagne - both in performance and trade value - even if he could have pitched like this for us this year? The way I see it, we basically just had to spend a few extra bucks to replace Cordero and still got whatever benefits that we did from the trade (the off-hand hope that Lee could help them last year, the two high picks, and whatever Cruz is).

by Brett Perryman on Jun 3, 2007 3:30 AM CDT up reply actions

Wow!

I guess 20-36, .357 winning percentage means nothing to those of you who are real Ranger fans.

I think the problem that I have with the apologists is that everything gets rationalized to fit into their neat little world view. Right now, people are saying that rebuilding the farm through the draft was why they made those bad trades. Huh? Whatever. We'll see in due time whether those 9 picks in the first 5 rounds amount to anything. If they get 1 or 2 major league role players out of the deal they'll be happy. If they get 1 bonafide star they'll be ecstatic.

The problem with the bad trades is not so much the bad trades because every team makes them. It is that they were dealing from such a position of weakness and the trades left them trying to play an outfield corner rotation of Cruz, Wilkerson, Catalanotto and Sosa which was dreadful. Top that off with Laird, Kinsler and Blalock and this team has major holes. Where he messed up on the trades, in my opinion, is that he traded quality major league talent and didn't fill any of the obvious holes and created more holes in the process and when the inevitable Wilkerson injury happened they found themselves playing 2 AAAA type players in the outfield instead of one.

Fire him or not I don't really care. Probably, the only thing I can ask for at this point is that the Rangers pick a reconstruction model and stick with it instead of changing in midstream. I also think that they need to try to draft guys who can play both offense and defense. Specialist guys are ok as long as they are outstanding at their specialized skill. I'd just rather see them get guys who are two way players. They don't have to be Tori Hunter good on the defensive end, just capable. I am so tired of the Rangers drafting Incaviglia types (not that I didn't love the way he hustled and played).

by gp on Jun 3, 2007 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions

reconstruction

thats exactly what needs to be done, one plan needs to be chosen and they need to stick to it. Which to me means keeping the same gm and letting him shape the team, sure he's made bad trades but you can see that some of them were done with the "win now" mentality they just all backfired horribly.
Changing management again, and changing organizational philosophy again will cause more harm than good.

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jun 3, 2007 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions

There's some intellectual dishonesty in this post.

Okay, you say that the trades left us with a combination of Cruz, Wilkerson, Sosa, and Cat to rotate through the COF spots...

What's the problem with Wilk, besides the injuries? He's been reasonably productive, when healthy. I don't know where we would have gotten the indication, prior to the trade, that he was particularly injury prone.
Cat's a career .300 hitter. Pointing at him as an unreasonable gamble in the offseason seems to be ridiculous.
Sosa hasn't been bad, and at $500k guaranteed, he's been a steal.
Cruz has sucked. Maybe he's indicative of the love affair the current (or recently current, anyway) scouts have with "toolsy" types that smack the shit out of the ball in BP. I don't know.

Either way, you're bitching about things that haven't really affected the win-loss percentage the way you think it has. It appears that you're griping about offense, but look over there to your left... See that? That anemic Ranger offense has outscored every other team in the AL west. Why aren't you bitching about the starting pitching, which is resulting in 59 more runs than the next highest total, essentially?

Adam's been saying this, over and over... it's not really the offense that's killing us, it's the starting pitching.

by benmor78 on Jun 3, 2007 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Okay

I'm not really strong either way on this argument, until I read what's wrong with Wilk.

My main problem is that we traded Soriano for him basically straight up.

That's the problem with trading guys the year before they're FA's. You dump Soriano, so that "you get SOMETHING for him, instead of just watching him walk."

I contend that with the money that would have come off the books when Soriano left, and the compensatory pick that you would recieved, you could have gone out and got much more than Wilk.

Also, you get a guy in his contract year. Imagine Soriano in left field everyday for this club last year. This team was in it until late, who knows where they would have been with a 40/40 guy in the lineup.

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions

soriano

well, he had never given any indication in the past that he would put up numbers like he did last season. And at the time national media was saying the rangers fleeced the nationals in that deal. The trade was only bad in hindsight because of wilkersons injuries and the season soriano posted (though i'd be shocked if he ever posts those numbers again)

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jun 3, 2007 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions

What?

Soriano's career 162 game AVERAGES

41 2B, 34 HR, 92 RBI, 35 SB, 115 OPS +

Wilkerson
35 2B, 22 HR, 69 RBI, 10 SB, 108 OPS +

And Soriano was the kind of guy that you knew would come up big in a contract year and Wilkerson was coming off a terrible year.

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions

soriano

and what is he doing now?

the guys never going to do what he did last season.heck when he was with texas he never did what he even did with the yankees.
plus they werent going to sign sori, and kinsler needed to move up, and the team obviously wouldnt force soriano to move to the outfield.

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jun 3, 2007 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Soriano

Keeping him around means not playing Kinsler last year, and it also probably means either no Padilla or no Millwood last year.

by Adam J. Morris on Jun 3, 2007 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Kinsler?

Kinsler plays if you tell him he's playing left like the Nationals demanded.

And there's only $6 million difference in their salaries, that keeps you from signing anyone else?

And if it does, you just give him away and get next to nothing in return

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions

well

did the rangers ever give ANY indication that they would force a player to play where they wanted them to? no.
they asked he said no and they said ok sorry, play where you want

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jun 3, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions

That's one of the problems

The Rangers would have had and the Nationals had all the leverage. Is he just going to not play in his contract year? No, he's going to play left field and try to play it well so that he can get paid.

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions

But there's no guarantee...

that Soriano would have hit the same for the Rangers as he did for the Nats. Different league and different pitchers.

by Redcaps on Jun 3, 2007 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions

You're right

And a much easier park to hit in Arlington and pitchers that he is more familiar with.

Chris Young/Adrian Gonzalez for Aki Otsuka, the new Sammy Sosa/Wilson Alvarez for Harold Baines

by badradiorules on Jun 3, 2007 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions

There is nothing

intellectually dishonest about what I wrote here. It is a friggin' opinion you blowhard. JD's trades have really hurt the bottom line of W's and L's and no amount of rationalizing can change that. Take his trades as a sum and not individually. This team lost an all-star second baseman and replaced him with an even worse butcher who has basically the same exact weaknesses that Soriano had. They traded a front line starting pitcher, a front line 1st baseman, and a utility outfielder for an injury plagued starting pitcher and a setup guy. Then they turned around and traded an elite closer for and a solid 4th outfielder for a free agent and minor leaguer who can't hit outside of batting practice. That is a whole bunch of guys for a whole bunch of nothing. Who really mentioned offense besides you? What is killing this team is pitching and defense. You can't man your two corner outfield slots with terrible defenders like Catalanotto, Wilkerson and Sosa and expect to compete. Maybe you think that defense doesn't matter but I know better. Just look at the record will ya. Look at the talent that this team had 2-3 years ago and compare it with what it has today.

Of course, Ben, you are the one being intellectually dishonest as usual. I never even mentioned the friggin' offense. I wasn't bitching about it at all. But if you want bitching about startin pitching all you have to mention is that Chris Young and Danks. Maybe, we should also mention signing Padilla to that contract with his history of instability or not resigning the guys they traded for such as Eaton. This team went into the season with 4 huge question marks in the rotation and now after 1/3 of the season we know how that has worked out. Of course, the starting pitching might just be a little better if the Rangers actually sported a team that played major league caliber defense. This team was poorly designed from the start and for the life of me I don't know why you and Adam can't see that. You probably can but just want to stir the pot.

by gp on Jun 3, 2007 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions

just to clarify

cordero was not an "elite closer" last year

at home, he converted 2 of 9 save opportunities with a 6.56 era. He was consistently booed by home fans and was damaged goods. Good for him that he's turned it around this year.

I think Wilkerson is a solid left-fielder, have no problem with his defense.

by Randy Richardson on Jun 3, 2007 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Dozens!!!

by Brian Thomas on Jun 3, 2007 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions

That's convincing...

good job </sarcasm>

by benmor78 on Jun 3, 2007 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Most important point to me

"He (Daniels) has given Hopkins more scouts and a bigger budget. He has assigned them the task of defining "the best player available" in clear terms. And he has charged them with creating a draft board that reflects that.

"I don't think it's been fair to the area scouts to give them a different set of criteria every year," Daniels said. "We want to take the best player available, and we don't want to limit ourselves. There is always the risk vs. reward debate, but we don't want our scouts to eliminate any players from consideration simply because of some specific criteria."

JD is rebuilding the scouting department, and that may be the most important thing he has done thus far in his tenure, and one of the reasons I think he knows what he is doing.

by t ball on Jun 3, 2007 5:47 AM CDT reply actions

Oh, and

"He has gained approval from owner Tom Hicks to significantly upgrade the money for signing bonuses."

by t ball on Jun 3, 2007 5:49 AM CDT up reply actions

jd

articles like this are why i think JD needs a contract extension. He simply cannot carry out his plans when he is constantly worried about getting fired, or not having a longterm deal.

"Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!" "If you don't throw strikes first, you're last."

by rentz on Jun 3, 2007 7:34 AM CDT reply actions

JD

IMO the most important part of a GM's job is the farm system and player development. Beane is a great example of this. Not all of his trades have worked out, but when the farm is constantly producing players they don't have to. If JD can get the farm sorted out then I can live with some bad trades.

Fire Michael Young and Ron Washington and Vicente Padilla

by pblack on Jun 3, 2007 8:19 AM CDT reply actions