T.R. Sullivan on the Rangers starters

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 30, 2008 12:26 PM CST in News

T.R. Sullivan has a new Around the Horn piece up, looking at the Rangers' starting pitching situation.

The rotation is pretty much locked in, barring injury, with Millwood, Padilla, Jennings, McCarthy, and Gabbard...

And stop me if you've heard this before, but that could be a good rotation, if everyone is healthy and has their head on straight. Or it could be a terrible rotation, if everyone pitches like they did in 2007.

And Millwood is apparently in great shape, after being in...not great shape last year.

Tweet Comment 59 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

50/50

So, it sounds like it's a 50/50 proposition......flip a coin.......I know I'm excited.......except for the track record of Millwood and Padilla for the last 2 years.

by LBrooks on Jan 30, 2008 12:28 PM CST reply actions

2 years?

ill take an innings eating 4.5 era and 15 wins that they each did 2 years ago.

by DShep on Jan 30, 2008 12:30 PM CST up reply actions

How about just last year

Millwood and Padilla had very respectable years in 2006.

"I've learned that before I open my mouth, I should look both ways for midgets." - Denny Crain

by mtex on Jan 30, 2008 12:32 PM CST up reply actions

Padilla

A guy you wanted the Rangers to re-sign, I'll remind you.

"I dont care to debate with a troll." - Sharky

by RCCook on Jan 30, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions

well

its probably a 50-50 shot that any of them are good and you would think 3 of them need to be good for it to work out - so, thats about a 5% chance of happening

by ab03 on Jan 30, 2008 2:16 PM CST up reply actions

my math may be rusty, but

if each of them are independent 50-50 propositions where "good" and "bad" are the only outcomes (and it doesn't matter which three are "good") then shouldn't it be just as likely that 3 or more of them will be "good" as it is that 2 or fewer will be "good" (outcomes are that 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 will be good with 2 or 3 being by far the most likely)?

by Brandon Wilson on Jan 30, 2008 3:58 PM CST up reply actions

i admit

i shuffled through the math really quickly.

you're right, the whole thing is at 50%. if you required that at least 4 starters would need to be good, goes down to a little under 20%

by ab03 on Jan 30, 2008 5:01 PM CST up reply actions

2007 v 2008

Team seems about the same.

lost a lot at 1b from tex to broussard.
but gained at catcher and CF. and RF if bradley makes it out there early in the season.

Bullpen is a little more up in question.

Of course, the 2007 team didnt end up so well, but there was some optimism going into the season.

With all the injury questions but high ceiling guys there is at least a chance of a good season, if its a very small one for that to all go right. Better than nothing.

As for the rotation, i do think millwood and mccarthy will improve but im clueless on what padilla, jennings and gabbard will do.

by DShep on Jan 30, 2008 12:35 PM CST reply actions

2007 optimism

I think a lot of that came from looking at the Angels and thinking they were overrated. Unfortunately they weren't (at least in the regular season), and they got better this offseason. Sure, Garland and Hunter aren't going to help them get past the Red Sox, Yankees, and Tigers (much to my joy), but adding those two more than offsets any improvement Texas may see in luck changing direction.

My optimistic outlook (right now): 89 wins and a happy 2nd place. Realistically? This team seems very much like a .500 club.

by JBImaknee on Jan 30, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions

i just have a feeling

that indians > tigers this year, evenm with cabrera and willis

by MayurP on Jan 30, 2008 3:05 PM CST up reply actions

Don't forget

Edgar Renteria.

Though some of that gain is mitigated by their puzzling move of Carlos Guillen from SS to 1b.

Why take a guy who's an offensive force at SS and turn him into a mediocre 1b? Was he really that bad defensively?

The 40 (still) trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on Jan 30, 2008 3:27 PM CST up reply actions

what I don't understand

Why would they play Guillen at first and Cabrera at 3rd? If those 2 guys are going to play the corner infield spots, it seems pretty obvious that it should be the other way around.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Jan 30, 2008 3:32 PM CST up reply actions

Millwood

I hope his only concern, is not just his weight. I would rather see him using an underwater tread mill than just kickboxing. IF, his legs or not in shape, it will be more hamstrings. 18 wins will be a great season. I have never been a big booster of his, but he really impressed me last year, in two different situations. First, he stood up to Wash, about the Laird fiasco, and he was always with the first group to greet a runner at the dugout steps.

by VEGASbB on Jan 30, 2008 12:41 PM CST reply actions

Has anyone seen Millwood?

Was he at FanFest or anything, so we could see what 'the best shape of his life' looks like? Or will we have to wait until Opening Day for him to go all Steven Segal on that first Oriole batter?

"I've learned that before I open my mouth, I should look both ways for midgets." - Denny Crain

by mtex on Jan 30, 2008 12:43 PM CST reply actions

Saw him...

sitting at a table. Couldn't tell if he was in better shape, but he has shaved off the soul patch.

by GhettoBear04 on Jan 30, 2008 4:10 PM CST up reply actions

I just hope

Millwood's every 3 year pattern holds.

"We should have bombed it (Auschwitz)"-President Bush

by DJCahill on Jan 30, 2008 12:44 PM CST reply actions

his 3 year pattern of getting fat and then fit?

Obama - ??? 2008 : He's not Hillary

by RangerMoto on Jan 30, 2008 4:01 PM CST up reply actions

ERA

2.68
3.24
2.86
????

by Steven on Jan 30, 2008 4:09 PM CST up reply actions

I hope that turns out better

than the Showalter leaves = WS title thing.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Jan 30, 2008 4:46 PM CST up reply actions

and the dark side of that

98 4.08
01 4.45
04 4.85
07 5.16

"We should have bombed it (Auschwitz)"-President Bush

by DJCahill on Jan 30, 2008 5:05 PM CST up reply actions

Throw numbers out...

he's in the best shape of his life.

"I've learned that before I open my mouth, I should look both ways for midgets." - Denny Crain

by mtex on Jan 30, 2008 5:11 PM CST up reply actions

alot of "IF"

I should be used to it by now but there is a lot of "they could contend IF" or "the rotation could be solid IF."

In the end some guys will probably exceed expectations while others will disapoint and others will be injured and come August we're talking about what prospects should get a September call up.

"Let's raise ticket prices and lower payroll, yea let's screw the fans and pad my pockets." - secret thoughts of Tom Hicks

by cgolden on Jan 30, 2008 12:46 PM CST reply actions

Yep,

that is the most likely outcome of a rebuilding year. Most likely its 75 to 81 win team.

"We should have bombed it (Auschwitz)"-President Bush

by DJCahill on Jan 30, 2008 12:53 PM CST up reply actions

Completely Agree

A lot of ifs.

Each if added to the equation is mulitplied not added making the liklihood of enough ifs coming out on the positive to make a serious impact very long, unfortunately.

I just don't see this team improving much. 78 win team roughly with maybe a greater variance than the typical team.

by gr7070 on Jan 30, 2008 1:10 PM CST up reply actions

Clue on Galarraga...

From T.R. Sullivan's column (names in parentheses added): >>> Those two could (Hurley and Mendoza) also be part of another rarity: an all-prospect rotation at Oklahoma. The RedHawks rotation could consist not only of Hurley and Mendoza, but also A.J. Murray, Thomas Diamond, Matt Harrison and/or Doug Mathis. < I guess this might have been running through Jon Daniels's head when he decided to designate Armando Galarraga for assignment. Had the Rangers kept him, Galarraga would have been in a tough battle to land a bullpen spot at the big leagues this year. If the team had optioned him back to Oklahoma-- using his last option-- he would have still had a lot of competition this year for innings, especially because in addition to the starters, Bill White and Scott Feldman will likely be in Oklahoma's bullpen. And many of these guys Galarraga would have been competing with this year would be the same guys he would have been competing with for spots in 2009, when there would be no options left for Galarraga. I also would have included Josh Rupe as a candidate for the Oklahoma rotation. The team also has Elizandro Ramirez, who they might have thought was comparable to Galarraga, and they can add Ramirez, who signed a minor league contract to the 40-man later (Same as they did to Guillermo Quiroz last year). I'm not sure if they made the right decision on Galarraga-- you always want to have as many options as possible-- but it might be that they felt that with so many other possibilities, the benefit of keeping Galarraga on the forty wasn't nearly as big as it would have been in previous years when Texas had so little depth.

by YourNameHere on Jan 30, 2008 1:26 PM CST reply actions

Very good points

But I'm not so sure that Bill White, Scott Feldman, and Elizardo Ramirez are comparable to Galarraga. I'm pretty sure he would have made a better releiver than all 3 combined. But what's done is done, I guess - does anybody know if he's been claimed off waivers yet? It's been about 5 or 6 days now, so if he's still with us, he might have shot at making it through, like Shelton did.

"The most important things in life are the things that are the least important" -Yogi Berra

by LSJ on Jan 30, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for the response...

When you write too long, it turns the whole thing into one paragraph. As far as White and Ramirez are concerned, neither one is on the 40-man roster as of now. The question is whether or not Galarraga will be better than Feldman, who also has one option left.

by YourNameHere on Jan 30, 2008 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

Galarraga >>> Feldman, IMO.

Galarraga has one thing Scott Feldman doesn't, and that's good control. Feldman's main problem is his walks, and his inabilty to keep the ball out of the middle of the plate. Plus, from the limited sample we saw last september, it looks like Galarraga has flat out better stuff than Feldman.

"The most important things in life are the things that are the least important" -Yogi Berra

by LSJ on Jan 30, 2008 9:53 PM CST up reply actions

Tough call...

Feldman really stunk last year. But for his minor league career (140.2 innings), he's averaged 3.08 walks per 9 innings, compared to Galarraga's 2.97. Not sure you can draw a lot from that.

In Galarraga's 8.2 big league innings, he gave up 2 home runs and issured 7 walks.

I'd take a look at http://www.thebaseballcube.com and check out Feldman's 2005 and 2006. I still wouldn't rule out him being a very good reliever in the major leagues.

by YourNameHere on Jan 30, 2008 10:25 PM CST up reply actions

Good points again...

But Feldman wasn't just bad last year, he was extrordinarily bad last year. So bad, they told him to change arm slots. That's a year I'm not sure he can recover from... but is supposed the Rangers are sticking with him simply becuase he has Major League experience, and Galarraga really doesn't.

"The most important things in life are the things that are the least important" -Yogi Berra

by LSJ on Jan 30, 2008 10:43 PM CST up reply actions

but I suppose the Rangers are sticking with him

Because of his experience. Sorry about the typo.

"The most important things in life are the things that are the least important" -Yogi Berra

by LSJ on Jan 30, 2008 10:45 PM CST up reply actions

Could have been the experience...

The experience factor might have been crucial. Feldman pitched very well in his first 50 innings at the big league level ('05 and '06). During that stretch, he averaged 2.13 walks per 9 innings. I have to imagine there's some way to regain that form.
................................................
Plus, Feldman's numbers at AAA last year were similar to Galarraga's (Although, to be fair, Galarraga's 24.1 innings were over 4 starts compared to Feldman's 30 innings over 21 relief appearences).
..................................................
At Oklahoma last year, Feldman averaged 3.60 walks per nine innings. That was his worst showing in the minors. Before that, he'd averaged 2.93 per nine while on the farm.

by YourNameHere on Jan 30, 2008 11:15 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for responding (part 2)...

Also, I believe with regards to Galarraga, when you designate a player for assignment, you have 10 days to decide whether to trade the player, release the player, or place the player on waivers. If they're trying to trade him, they've got to do so in the next few days (I think he was DFA'd on 1/25). If they can't do so by then, Texas will have to try and get him through waivers (I doubt they'll just release him).

by YourNameHere on Jan 30, 2008 7:34 PM CST up reply actions

DFA

If he clears waivers he will be outrighted to OKC. Since he has never been DFAd before he does not have the choice to decline the assignment.

by Steven on Jan 30, 2008 8:58 PM CST up reply actions

Correct...

>>>If he clears waivers he will be outrighted to OKC. Since he has never been DFAd before he does not have the choice to decline the assignment.
<<<...............................................______________ ____
Exactly. Now what we need to know is if he's been put on waivers yet. They have up to 10 days to do that. They could try and trade him for 10 days, and then, if they can't find a trade partner, put him on waivers. They could expedite the process and put him on waivers before the 10 days are up to see if he clears. I'm not sure how long it takes from the time that a player is placed on waivers until the time he has cleared (assuming, of coures, that he does clear).

by YourNameHere on Jan 30, 2008 9:36 PM CST up reply actions

That's exactly what I'm asking...

What are they doing with him? Are they shopping him, just letting his 10 days pass, or have they put him on waivers yet? I haven't been able to find anyplace that keeps track of that kind of stuff on the web.

I'm thinking myself that the Rangers are probalby inclined to try and push him through waivers, becuase I haven't heard one whiff of Galarraga being shopped... JD is probably feeling lucky after Shelton got through.

"The most important things in life are the things that are the least important" -Yogi Berra

by LSJ on Jan 30, 2008 9:50 PM CST up reply actions

Hes already on waivers

He goes on waivers as soon as you DFA him IIRC. He stays on waivers for 10 days. During that time if a team claims him you can work out a trade. Lets say 4 teams put a claim on him. The team with the lowest, or highest however you look at it, claim number will get him for nothing. But if you work out a deal with on of the other 3 teams then you can trade him. Or that team that would get him free can work out a better trade than the other clubs.

Its not wait 10 days to work a trade and if no trade is made then he goes through waivers. As soon as you DFA him he goes through. I think yall are confused on that.

by Steven on Jan 31, 2008 7:02 AM CST up reply actions

Thanks...

Thanks for the clarification. I guess in the meantime we won't know who's put a claim on him, as the Rangers would probably try working out a trade with that team or another one ................................................ Steven- Do you by chance know where you were able to find that information? In the collective bargaining agreement (Link is on the Right Side or at http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf ) on page 79, it just refers to the rules regarding waivers (Major League Rule 10). Any information would be appreciated.

by YourNameHere on Jan 31, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions

Keith Law loves him some German Duran

Law has his top 5 prospects for each organization on his blog.

For Texas:

Elvis Andrus, ss
Taylor Teagarden, c
Michael Main, rhp
German Duran, 2b
Eric Hurley, rhp

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Jan 30, 2008 2:20 PM CST reply actions

Deja vu

I'll say again, wow, I like Duran, but that's almost silly.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Jan 30, 2008 2:35 PM CST up reply actions

it's good to see Duran getting some love...

but the fact that Davis doesn't crack the top 5 irks me.

by JimCrankshaft on Jan 30, 2008 2:38 PM CST up reply actions

Millwood

I like that he sounds kind of pissed that everyone is getting on him about being out of shape last year. Sounds like he channeled that in the right direction.

This sounds funny to say, but the Rangers have more guys who can be good 5th and 6th starters than maybe any other team. The depth is there, and they'll probably need it. We should get lots of chances to check out young arms later in the year.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Jan 30, 2008 2:38 PM CST reply actions

Speaking of Matt Harrison ...

Some Video - http://tinyurl.com/yrw2dx

Pure Rock Pics

by shroomer on Jan 30, 2008 4:19 PM CST reply actions

My man crush continues to grow

"heres to you brett for making me get all wet" -NYTXFAN

by jparks77 on Jan 30, 2008 4:29 PM CST up reply actions

+1

I cant wait for him to be on the big league team.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 30, 2008 6:37 PM CST up reply actions

Hmmm...

Funky delivery. Something about the way his plant leg comes down. Looked awful herky-jerky to me. I'd like to see more of it before I call it a problem or a concern though.

I'm not a Harrison fan, at all, and that video did nothing to change my mind.

The best thing that vid showed me was that he's got a serious case of crazy eyes. I would not want that guy living in the double-wide next to mine!!!

The 40 (still) trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on Jan 30, 2008 7:56 PM CST up reply actions

[Semi-]Amateur Mechanical Analysis

At full speed, he looks pretty compact but appears to be lunging into his landing. I slowed it down (paused it in several different places), and he's actually kicking forward into his landing, starting his hip turn before his foot hits, and seems to be pulling himself forward with that front leg after he lands.

The early hip turn puts a lot his weight on his front leg. This extra weight forces that front leg to focus more on keeping his body upright and less on accelerating his hips. Based on his control, he apparently has the athleticism to work with it.

I'm not too excited about the arm drag I saw in a couple of the frames. The angle isn't great, but his elbow is still clearly behind his back when his left shoulder starts moving forward. This puts unnecessary stress on the front of the shoulder (biceps tendon, labrum).

I'm not terribly worried about it and can't wait to see him against tougher competition.

I lack the required experience to be an intern.

by TheRupeIsOnFire on Jan 30, 2008 10:58 PM CST up reply actions

You saw what I saw

in terms of his plant leg. Instead of using that plant to transfer his momentum into his release, he sort of comes to a stop and ends up using only the energy created by is upper body for his release.

Yuck.

I'm a completely amateur mechanical analyst, and there wasn't much to go on in those videos, but what I saw runs contrary to everything I've ever heard about good pitching mechanics.

His throws are too shouldery, if that makes any sense.

The guy looks like shoulder surgery waiting to happen, imo.

The 40 (still) trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on Jan 30, 2008 11:48 PM CST up reply actions

The reason I'm not too worried

His arm was up and in a pretty healthy position before his shoulder really gained much velocity. For what it's worth, his velocity doesn't appear to be bad velocity.

Given his recent success in the AFL, he's clearly got a lot going for him with his current mechanics. If an effort is made to improve that part of his delivery (by Harrison and/or the Rangers), I could see him adding anywhere from 2-5 MPH to his fastball - a huge jump for someone who already has strong pitchability.

I lack the required experience to be an intern.

by TheRupeIsOnFire on Jan 31, 2008 12:17 AM CST up reply actions

Enjoyed y'alls' analysis

My first impression was of a more athletic [post-babyfat?] Brett Anderson - http://youtube.com/watch?v=LmJApEI04mY

Pure Rock Pics

by shroomer on Jan 31, 2008 6:55 AM CST up reply actions

I'm not excited about this rotation...

it scares me.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Jan 30, 2008 6:09 PM CST reply actions

+1

LSB : Trolls :: Rangers : 4th OF'ers

by inactive lsb user on Jan 30, 2008 6:56 PM CST up reply actions

Bedard's agent has told Baltimore

It will take a 7 year $100MM contract to keep him. So the question is if the O's/M's trade goes through can/will the M's get a contract done for that. Or do they call the trade off knowing what it will take.

Piss off nut chucker... Boomer Sooner!

by boomer1 on Jan 30, 2008 6:46 PM CST reply actions

the o's are offering five years,

seems like they arent that far off. But if Im Bedard Im not re-signing with the O's. They don't have a realistic shot at making the playoffs for a very long time.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 30, 2008 6:57 PM CST up reply actions

If I'm the O's...

I keep him and sign him.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Jan 30, 2008 7:58 PM CST up reply actions

all I can say is

If Jennings is our one veteran rotation re-tread signing of the year I'm happy. No more Wright's and Chen's as the AAA rotation looks to be complete and maybe too full if Galarraga and Tejeda clear waivers.

My projections;

Millwood - 13-11 4.97 ERA
Jennings - 14-8 4.67 ERA
Padilla - 11-13 - 5.04 ERA
Gabbard - 8-8 - 5.39 ERA
McCarthy - 12-7 - 4.55 ERA
Fill in starters - 9-16 5.69 ERA
Bull-Pen - 18-15 - 4.88 ERA

Giving us a 84-78 record...

Yeah, well at least I'm housebroken.

by HypoLuxa on Jan 31, 2008 9:06 AM CST reply actions

'08 Angels Overview

Can find an outlook on the L.A. Angels for 2008 here. Not one on the Rangers yet though.

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2008/01/31/the-2008-los-angeles-angels-pure-balance/

by ET90210 on Jan 31, 2008 9:32 AM CST reply actions

Can we please define "Good Rotation"?

TR rightfully points out that the rotation was disastorous in 07. He quotes the stats of 42 wins, 838 IP, and an ERA of 5.50. My question is how god does a rotation need to be to get out of the disatorous level?

Ideally I would like 5 guys each throwing 200 innings and each with an ERA under 4.00. OK that is more than a little jump from last season.

Is it realistic to expect 900 IP? 950....

What is a realistic ERA to expect from out top 5? 5.00, 4.75, 4.50...

Wins, well give me IP and a decnt ERA and the wins will come. But more than 42 is a must. What is a reasonable expectation, 50, 60, 65???

I will call the Rotation a success if they hit 950 IP, and ERA of 4.65 or better and hit 60 wins. Otherwise it is just another year of looking at the rotation and shaking my head.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 31, 2008 9:53 AM CST reply actions

"Good Rotation"

Last year the averages:
AL 58 wins, 4.63 ERA
NL 54 wins, 4.65 ERA

If the rotation hits the numbers you suggest, I think we'd all have to say they'd done fairly well. I don't think they'll get to 60 wins, I think the low 50s is a good bet.

Shoehorn.

by t ball on Jan 31, 2008 1:16 PM CST up reply actions