Bill James projects the 2009 Rangers
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 1:06 AM CST
145 comments
Thanks to FanGraphs, I was able to piece together Bill James' projections for the 2009 Rangers.
Line-up Avg / OBP / SLG / OPS
Kinsler 291 / 360 / 482 / 842
Young 297 / 349 / 427 / 776
Hamilton 310 / 384 / 556 / 940
Cruz 278 / 352 / 533 / 885
Davis 302 / 352 / 599 / 951
Byrd 283 / 351 / 425 / 776
Blalock 282 / 346 / 476 / 822
Teagarden 239 / 317 / 455 / 772
Laird 263 / 318 / 396 / 714
Salta… 262 / 349 / 424 / 773
Ramirez 308 / 390 / 548 / 938
Murphy 277 / 336 / 450 / 786
Duran 269 / 315 / 433 / 748
Boggs 253 / 359 / 452 / 811
Arias 280 / 308 / 390 / 698
Bradley 287 / 391 / 489 / 879
Check out the projections for Cruz, Davis, and Ramirez. Wow! Teagarden OPSing 772 as a rookie would make me very happy.
Rotation GS / IP / ERA
Millwood 27 / 171 / 4.40
Padilla 26 / 151 / 4.72
Feldman 25 / 153 / 4.64
McCarthy 23 / 121 / 4.26
Gabbard 26 / 137 / 4.82
Nippert 12 / 96 / 4.97
Sorry, no projections for Hurley or Harrison
There must be something wrong here. Surely, James can't believe that the Rangers will have six starters with sub-5.00 ERAs!
Bullpen G / IP / ERA
Francisco 57 / 61 / 3.55
Benoit 36 / 37 / 4.13
Wilson 52 / 48 / 4.49
Rupe 48 / 90 / 5.44
Loe 20 / 46 / 5.24
Sorry, no projections for Madrigal.
James doesn’t think much of the Rangers’ bullpen. Based on his recent comments regarding his priorities for the offseason, I must assume that JD is using the same metrics as Bill James to project the Rangers' relievers in 2009.
7 recs |
145 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Those are wildly optimistic projections
Good grief.
by Joey Matschulat on Nov 15, 2008 1:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Do you have any idea what James' hit rate is?
I remember him being surprisingly accurate with Josh Hamilton’s 2008 projection but that’s the only one that I can come up with off the top of my head.
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 1:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is what James has to say about his projections
“We project, basically, that every player will continue to do in the future what he has done in the past,” James writes. “We’re pretty close to right most of the time, because most players in any season will continue to do about what they have done in the past.”
James notes that adjustments are made based on age and “some other things,” reminds that injuries can’t be anticipated, and maintains that it’s often a crapshoot to project how much playing time a young player may receive. He remains adamant that minor league performance can be used to project big league performance, which is a big part of why the book foresees a great season for Ellsbury.
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 1:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was very close on Hamilton's AVG/HR/RBI, but badly missed his OPS
Something like 80-90 points that he overshot it by.
by Joey Matschulat on Nov 15, 2008 1:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Last year, Tricer posted the following OPS projections for Hamilton's 2008 season
ZIPS – 840
CHONE – 860
Marcel – 869
James – 979
Actual – 901, IIRC
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 1:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When Bill James
speaks or writes, I listen and read.
The single most influential voice in my world as it relates to the Great Game.
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2008 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
bwahaha
good lord, you’re a bill james fan?
""If they'd have told me you can make the team but you've got to shine the shoes, I'd have been there shining shoes." -Bradley
by ab03 on Nov 15, 2008 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Josey worships the craps Bill James takes
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why
would that shock you, abo3?
"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."
by Josey Wales on Nov 15, 2008 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
Ramirez 308 / 390 / 548 / 938
Saying these predictions are optimistic is an understatement. . If all of the Rangers rotation has a sub 5 era we are in the playoffs.
Fire Todd Dodge. Seriously. Back to Suckville with a loss to FLA ATL but whatever, SUCK IT WESTERN KENTUCKY! 1-9 baby!
by sprite on Nov 15, 2008 1:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think he goes for defense nuetral.
With our defense there’s no way it could happen.
But with a good defense there’s prolly a chance for at least Millwood and maybe one or two others.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 15, 2008 1:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
More reason why I gotta wonder why there have been reports that the Rangers value Ramirez the least of any of the four catchers. I gotta believe he is much more valuable than Laird. It seems like he could net something very nice from a team in need of a DH. Tampa Bay comes to mind.
I noticed the other day that the author on DRay Bay suggested that along with trading Sonnanstine/Jackson, the Rays should and probably will consider dealing Wheeler. Wheeler’s WHIP was 0.99 in 2008, but his tRA was significantly higher than his 3.12 ERA. He has, though, had some objectively awesome seasons not too long ago. I would have some serious interest in a Sonnanstine + Wheeler package. That would net us a high upside reliever under contract for a couple years and a solid #2/3 starter under contract for 5 years.
I also know that Tampa Bay makes a big deal of their use of projection systems to determine players value. I really believe that Texas and Tampa match up really well for a trade this off-season. Max Ramirez, David Murphy (or Byrd), and maybe Warner Madrigal would be a pretty respectable offer for Wheeler and Sonnanstine, I would think. (maybe with another prospect thrown in)
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know that Tampa would deal for a DH when they could just sign someone like Bradley.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Nov 15, 2008 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Payroll restrictions
They have a little less than 10 million dollars to spend this off-season, I believe. They need to fill the RF and DH spots. They might prefer to just sign a FA, but they also might prefer to use their pitching depth to fill a couple of needs more cheaply and sign, say, a Kerry Wood or Brian Fuentes to finish off their bullpen. I could reasonably see a situation where they have an interest in Ramirez/Murphy/Byrd.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 6:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where did you get that figure from?
I’m not too familiar with the Rays payroll structure, but would think that they would spend this offseason after making it to the WS. That pitching is fine and the offense is the only thing holding them back at all. Getting Bradley could be huge for them.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Link
They had a 45 million dollar payroll last year. They won’t go above 55 this year. They mention possible interest in Dunn, Bradley, etc. But they say that a closer is their top priority.
Another piece of news from today suggests that Percival is going to undergo surgery rather than retire, eating 4 million more dollars from their payroll and potentially keeping them out of the running for any major FAs. Basically, if Percival opts to not retire, if they sign a high priced reliever, or if they cannot afford Bradley/Dunn, I could see them having some serious interest in Ramirez. They also need an OFer to split time with Gross or take over in RF. Hence, they might be interested in cheap options like Byrd or Murphy.
Their official website also says they will explore deals for both Sonnanstine and Jackson, with Price, Davis, and Niemann ready for major league spots.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 6:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and to elaborate on payroll
Here is a breakdown with their projected payroll for 2009 after arbitration:
http://www.raysindex.com/2008/11/2009-tampa-bay-rays-projected-2009.html
They are already over 54 million. Friedman has also made comments about not having the payroll room to sign an established closer, which he says is their first priority. I think they will use Jackson and Sonnanstine to get the pieces they need to fill out their roster and focus on lesser FAs.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
man
We complain about Hicks, but that owner sucks. That team just went to the WS with a young core of players that will remain cheap for a while longer yet he still can’t spend a bit more money to make his team favorites to go back to the WS.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 11:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No Playoffs There
Innings pitched leader is MIllwood at 171. Third starter territory.
by Black Francis on Nov 16, 2008 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sonnastine
- starter? Did you two share an intimate moment or something? You’re love for him blinds you to the fact that he is really not that good.
by bushe on Nov 17, 2008 12:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Well, do me a favor. Find any stat that says that Sonnanstine is not a very good starter. Is it his tRA of 3.82? His 122 tRA+? His 3.98 FIP? His 3.91 DIPS? His 4.38 ERA? His 37 walks (4th fewest in the AL)? His 3.35 K/BB ratio? His 1.29 WHIP? Or the fact that Bill James projects him to have a better ERA next season than John Danks, Zack Greinke, Jon Lester, and Edinson Volquez?
He is one of the most undervalued pitchers in the American League and he is reportedly available. Allegedly, he wouldn’t cost nearly as much as say Nolasco or Greinke, and he is under team control for 5 years. So yeah, I think he is someone the Rangers should consider this off-season, just like they should consider any other viable option to improve their pitching.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 17, 2008 1:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 17, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
you are flat wrong if you think the Rays undervalue him and I don’t think he is a #2 starter. I think the Rays have not been known to be “pleasant” to deal with and he would cost considerably more than he’s worth, which in my estimation, is about Paul Byrd’s production.
by bushe on Nov 17, 2008 3:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the Rays undervalue him, nor did I say that. All I said was that I think he is undervalued in baseball generally. He is actually a really good pitcher, but many people assume that he is some bottom of the rotation scrub, or as you said, they believe he is simply not very good. If you look at the stats, he is clearly a very good pitcher. He dosn’t throw that hard and only strikes out about 5.80 per 9 innings but those are his only downsides. He might not be a #1 pitcher, but he sure pitched like one last year.
As to what he would cost- well that is anyone’s guess. No point in arguing over that. I just think Tampa (given that the only have less than 10 million to spend this off-season) is going to have to fill some needs (DH, RF, CL, RP) via trade and not free agency. Sonnanstine and Jackson are two of their most expendable and valuable trading commodities. It makes sense they would explore deals for those two players.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 17, 2008 3:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
interesting comp
Sonnanstine’s most similar pitcher through age 25 is Kam Loe.
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 17, 2008 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What the...
…a baseball player named ‘Lil Stoner’?
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Nov 17, 2008 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw that and laughed
Apparently his real name was Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner.
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 17, 2008 4:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
he is really not that good.
I think there’s a lose definition for such a statement, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply to Andy Sonnanstine.
by philkid3 on Nov 17, 2008 10:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh, I was gonna do this tomorrow.
What really stands out to me is how bullish is he is on four of my favorite guys: Max, Nelson Cruz and Chris Davis.
Here’s hoping the Rangers aren’t stupid and give Nelson a full slate of AB’s in RF next year and continue develpoing Max as a catcher. Those guys have the potential to be real plussy-plussers if handled right, imo.
Davis I’m not too worried about. I’m reasonably certain he’s gonna get a full slate of AB’s unless he dies or something, and even then he’d prolly get at last 400.
I’m a little higher on Dusty Tits than he is, though. I’d really like to see him in the rotation next year assuming he looks decent in ST.
Oh, and Brandon Boggs. Nice. Makes me think maybe we should start dealing Murphy and Byrd to clear out LF for him. His D would certainly play there.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 15, 2008 2:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Son, have you been drinking tonight?
PoPo shows Dirkatron player cards for Max, Cruz, and Davis – “Can you tell me how many players I have here?”
Dirkatron – “That’s clearly four, officer.”
PoPo – “Hands behind your back, son.”
What really stands out to me is how bullish is he is on four of my favorite guys: Max, Nelson Cruz and Chris Davis.
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 2:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh, well I misread at first.
I thought he was bullish on my boy Dusty Tits and then I went back up to check on something and noticed I was reading McCarthy’s line instead so I edited it a bit. Apparently I missed the intro.
No drinking tonight.
I swear ;)
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 15, 2008 2:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Housed, ad usual
whut of it?
At this rate, he’ll be throwing 107-110 by 2012
by trident on Nov 15, 2008 3:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good f'n god
People are commenting at 4 in the morning?
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Nov 15, 2008 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The prediction of Gabbard having a sub-5.00 ERA in itself is ludicrous.
"Either we need to re-calibrate our rectangle, or Alfonzo Marquez is not having a good night." - Josh Lewin
by utlonghorn24 on Nov 15, 2008 3:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
did you confuse gabbad with mendoza?
gabbard has a 4.52 ERA career era, and his 4.82 last year was a lot better before his injury plagued final starts.
of course, hes very injury prone and even if he does have a decent ERA he doesnt go deep into games, but yeah..
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Nov 15, 2008 3:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
It’s the part about Gabbard starting 26 games that’s ludicrious.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 15, 2008 5:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And projections for a few pitchers targeted by various Rangers fans/writers
Greinke – 30 GS / 194 IP / 3.98 ERA
Cain – 32 GS / 213 IP / 3.57 ERA
Peavy – 32 GS / 202 IP / 3.26 ERA
Hughes – 22 GS / 125 IP / 3.35 ERA
Volstad – 14 GS / 84 IP / 2.88 ERA
Jon Sanchez – 24 GS / 132 IP / 3.90 ERA
Anibal Sanchez – 25 GS / 131 IP / 4.36 ERA
Andrew Miller – 20 GS / 114 IP / 4.78 ERA
No projections for Homer Bailey, Clay Buchholz, or Justin Masterson
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 6:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
volstad - 2.88 era... wowzers...
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
by ivysafety39 on Nov 15, 2008 7:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sonnanstine
31 GS/ 195 IP/ 3.92 ERA
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sonny = Beast.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 15, 2008 6:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sonnastine and Dirkatron
I was looking through a bunch of pitcher rankings based on various 2008 stats and getting very similar Top20 lists until I used K/BB and then suddenly, there was Sonnastine at #14! He didn’t appear among the leaders in ERA+, tRA*, xFIP, WHIP, K/IP, or HR/9, but he is near the top when it comes to K/BB. And suddenly, Dirkatron’s unadulterated enthusiasm for Sonnastine made perfect sense.
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One thing I've come to learn reading LSB
When thedirkatron has the hots for a player, there’s usually a pretty good reason. And vice versa of course.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 16, 2008 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
which player
has had the hots for dirkatron?
by Randy Richardson on Nov 16, 2008 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Gabe Gross
Bring up Matt West '09
by Chase Irwin on Nov 16, 2008 3:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
How dare you.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 17, 2008 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yah, I'm pretty dreamy.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 17, 2008 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sonnanstine is really, really good
and available this off-season apparently. I think that has to make a fan of a team like the Rangers very excited.
There is a lot to like about Sonnanstine:
He was a #1 starter, according to tRA+. (122 tRA+, 118 is the threshold for #1 starters)
He was 23.3 pitching runs above average. (No pitcher in our rotation was more than 2 runs above average)
He has consistent FIP, DIPS, and tRA numbers, all in the high 3’s.
He allowed the 4th fewest amount of walks of all qualifying pitchers in the AL
Bill James projects him to have a better ERA in 2009 than Zack Greinke, Edinson Volquez, and John Danks.
He also isn’t particularly fly ball or home run prone.
Yeah, Sonnanstine is dreamy. And the best part? Acquiring him, apparently, wouldn’t cost the same as acquiring someone like Cain or Greinke because he doesn’t have ace-caliber stuff. But he has fantastic secondary stuff and great control. The Rangers better ask about him this off-season.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 16, 2008 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Nice post
Bring up Matt West '09
by Chase Irwin on Nov 16, 2008 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so basically...
…james believes laird is our worst offensive catcher.
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
by ivysafety39 on Nov 15, 2008 7:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Though the Rangers worst offensive catcher would still project to be middle-of-the-pack in MLB
And MaxRam, Saltalamacchia, and Teagarden project to be Top10 offensive performers among ML catchers.
2008 OPS for catchers with at least 300 ABs
McCann / ATL / .896
Iannetta / COL / .895
Soto / CHN / .868
Shoppach / CLE / .865
Mauer / MIN / .864
Doumit / PIT / .858
Snyder / ARI / .800
Martin / LAN / .781
Molina / SF / .767
Navarro / TB / .757
Rodriguez / DET/ .756
Coste / PHI / .748
Molina / STL / .740
Pierzynski / CHA / .728
Laird / TEX / .727
Olivo / KC / .722
Suzuki / OAK / .716
Hernandez / BAL / .714
Flores / WAS / .698
Varitek / BOS / .672
Inge / DET / .672
Buck / KC / .669
Schneider / NYN / .707
Barajas / TOR / .704
Kendall / MIL / .651
Bako / CIN / .626
Ruiz / PHI / .620
Johjima / SEA / .609
Mathis / LAA / .593
by spurdynasty on Nov 15, 2008 8:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
long term you DONT think laird is our worst offensive catcher?
the man is a CAREER 79 ops+
2007: 160 games, 64 ops+
2008: 95 games, 92 ops+
his number 3 on baseball reference "similar batters through age 28 is adam fucking everett.
yes, he is our worst offensive catcher. give those 4 guys 500 AB and laird is going to be the worst one offensively 99 times out of 100.
hell, in 100 games as a ranger salty has an ops+ of a little less than 90, hes a career 91 ops+ guy
yes. gerald laird is far and away our WORST offensive catcher
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 15, 2008 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
there is no assurance...
…teagarden will develop his touted power and with his lower average if he doesn’t than its not going to be that high… and if you’re leaning on the “look what he’s already done in the league” crutch, BSS. ask chris shelton about small sample sizes.
that being said, i really believe a combo of taylor tea and maxram would be a great combo behind the plate. though TT’s injury history might make me more inclined to have a veteran backup around incase he hurts something, that way its not just max left shouldering the load.
"Anyone that isn't pro-choice never met you" ~Brian Thomas on Seth...
by ivysafety39 on Nov 15, 2008 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the only facets of the game in which laird is better than teagarden is speed and bunting.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 1:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 15, 2008 9:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
this is true sir!
DSheppard Winner of the 2008 Game Day Thread Graphics Award
Gossamer 1st Runner Up
Honorable Mention:
TxStCa, Rodney, LSJ, Baseballs Girlfriend, CMKelly29, Ghtd36, Chase Irwin,
Rangers85
by LAMuscleFag on Nov 15, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Teagarden
I would also be very happy if Teagarden OPSed at that level as a rookie. That would make him a very valuable player. This is why I just cant get behind trading Teagarden. I just hope the Rangers do the following things:
1. Make Teagarden the full time catcher. Get him 120-130 games behind the plate with Ramirez catching the rest.
2. Give Cruz a full year in RF. I think he has turned the corner on his hitting and his defense is an asset IMO.
3. Make sure that Ramirez gets at least 400 plate appearances between catching, DHing, and a few games at first.
4. I still think a Boggs and Murhpy platoon in LF would be ideal
5. Give McCarthy a spot in the rotation (please please be healthy) because I think he would succeed.
Just 5 things I really hope the Rangers do.
by Michael Cave on Nov 15, 2008 8:52 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
you had me on board w/ 1-4
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 15, 2008 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha,
So i assume you dont share the same opinion of McCarthy that I have? Is it talent level or you just fear that hey will never be healthy? Just wondering is all…
by Michael Cave on Nov 15, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
McCarthy ran over his puppy
that’s why he hates him
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
DRays Bay put up some info on the matter.
And I’m pretty sure he’s right about 10 million.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2008 6:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2 things Tricer sneers at
Animal cruelty, and Brandon McCarthy…
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 15, 2008 7:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
An addendum to Michael's "5 things" list
6. Trade or release Cat – James has projected that 12 Rangers will have an OPS higher than the 766 that he projects for Cat. With Blalock signed to fill the LH DH role and five ML-quality outfielders on the roster, there is really no reason to have Cat taking up space on either the 40-man or the 25-man.
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 9:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Former Ranger pitchers
2009 projections
GS / IP / ERAArmando Galarraga 28 / 188 / 4.48
Edinson Volquez 30 / 192 / 4.08
John Danks 33 / 201 / 4.00
Chris Young 29 / 153 / 3.37
by tyd3311 on Nov 15, 2008 9:30 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
damn
it. Maybe someone can repost that and clean it up.
by tyd3311 on Nov 15, 2008 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems awfully
bullish on Chris Young even if he is pitching at Petco.
by Michael Cave on Nov 15, 2008 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Young's ERAs in the last three years:
3.46, 3.12, 3.96. I don’t think 3.37 would be all that surprising.
I think those are four reasonable projections.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I do
When he posted his 3.46 ERA and 3.12 ERA, he had one of the best defenses in the league behind him. Even last year, he had a pretty god one. With the Padres trying to rebuild, I just don’t see them having that great of a defense. Plus, look at how Young has posted those ERAs. His 2007 ERA was the only one that came close to matching his defensive independent ERA (use whichever metric you want) and that was thanks to his ridiculously good HR/FB ratio (again, flukey). At the age of 30, I think its a pretty good bet that Young wn’t be posting anything close to a 3.37 ERA. My guess is that it is around a 4.25 ERA.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at some other metrics
I think you may be right. Young’s tRA has been pretty mediocre two of the last three years.
I just presumed that James projected pitchers based on a neutral defense. But, even Young’s FIP numbers have been pretty been in the mid-4’s two of the last three years. If he is making defense neutral projections, Young should be more around 4 (like he was last year).
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 6:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
galarraga
i love it when ppl use him as an example of someone who the rangers traded who turned out good
….and id love to see were anyone said he would be good in the minors this year, much less good in the majors
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 1:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If those projections...
come to fruition the Rangers would win the AL West. Thise #‘s simply can’t be right for our starting pitchers.
The top 9 you have in the lineup is exactly the way I want to see it on opening day.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 15, 2008 9:56 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
*Those*
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 15, 2008 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
weird...
He really thinks Tea would have a SLG 200 points higher than his BA? .239 vs .455 is almost double – that means that he’ll have 1 home run for every 2 singles (assuming no triples) … Doesn’t seem quite to me…
People who think the Rangers should keep Salty should take note of these projections. I support the Tea / MaxRam ticket for 2009!
Oh, and the pitching projections are just nutty. He must project all players onto an expected range for ERAs (likely between 2.50 and 5.00) according to how they have distributed in years past. All the Ranger starters would be twoards the top end of that range, so they end up with high 4’s. See, I’ve reverse engineered Bill James! Give me a job JD.
by JBImaknee on Nov 15, 2008 11:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Teagarden's projected SLG
I am very skeptical of Teagarden’s projections as well, but I can almost see how where James got his numbers for Teagarden in 2009. Below are Teagarden’s ISOP for his minor league stops that lasted more than 100 AB:
2007 (A+) – 291
2007 (AA) – 235
2008 (AAA) – 171
James is projecting an ISOP of 216 for Teagarden next year which is just a shade under the ~230 that he averaged as a minor leaguer.
Regarding Saltalamacchia – If his OPS is 772 in 2009, then he is almost guaranteed to be among the Top10 offensive catchers in the major leagues. Like you, I would rather have Teagarden or MaxRam as the Rangers primary catcher but I think that the team could be successful if they wind up going with Salatalamacchia as the primary catcher next year.
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Settle down people
Starters with sub 5s? Tea and MaxRam averaging out to 850 OPS+? Not gonna happen. But, Bill James is a hell of a lot smarter than me/us, so…………
Crap, I don’t want to be optomistic in November fer Christ’s sake.
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Nov 15, 2008 11:16 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like to be optimistic too
But I’m having a really hard time believing half these numbers are realistic. Especially those for the starting rotation. But it’s certainly fun to imagine the possibilites if they are accurate…
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 15, 2008 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Spursdynasty..
Assuming all of these numbers come to fruition, what would you eyeball as a possible win total?
I think the Rangers could be a 86-90 win team personally.
Btw, my grad school stats teacher liked your analysis. He is going to offer me some notes on it on Monday. Well done again….
by Michael Cave on Nov 15, 2008 12:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good question
I had to take a pen to paper for this exercise. Note that the predicted win-loss record at the bottom of this reply has an exceptionally high percent error based on the fact that I used a combination of projected ML performances, OPS to runs scored and ERA to runs allowed conversion rates based on past Rangers teams, and a pythagorean win% calculation that is known to be only a loose approximater of actual records. So proceed at your own peril.
Team OPS assumes that Kinsler, Young, Hamilton, Cruz, Davis, Blalock, Teagarden, Murphy/Byrd, and a 750 OPS 3B get 90% of the playing time in 2009 and that MaxRam, Duran, and Boggs get the bulk of the remaining AB’s.
Position / OPS
2B / 825
SS / 770
CF / 920
RF / 875
1B / 940
LF / 780
DH / 830
C / 790
3B / 750
Using the above numbers nets a projected team OPS of 831 for 2009. As a reality check, the Rangers team OPS for 2008 was 816, so 831 doesn’t seem overly optimistic. To convert the projected OPS to projected runs scored for 2009, I ratio’d OPS to runs scored for the Rangers in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 and got a conversion rate of 1.083 +/- 0.016 runs scored per OPS. Applied to 2009, the Rangers are projected to score 900 +/- 13 runs.
For the team ERA, I assumed that Millwood, Padilla, Feldman, and McCarthy started 80% of the games and that Nippert and Gabbard split the rest. The rotation ERA would be 4.58. Assuming the bullpen comes through with a similar ERA, then you can use 4.58 to represent the team’s ERA for 2009. To convert the projected team ERA to runs allowed for 2009, I ratio’d team ERA to runs allowed for the Rangers in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 to produce an ERA to runs allowed converter of 175.3 +/- 4.43. Note that this conversion rate assumes that the defense and the number of unearned runs allowed for the various Rangers teams is relatively constant. The low standard deviation (4.43) suggests that this assumption is reasonably accurate. Using the converter with the 2009 projected team ERA projects the Rangers to allow 803 +/- 20 runs.
Using a relatively simple pythagorean win % formula of 1/1+(Runs allowed/Runs scored)squared with the average projected runs scored and runs allowed nets a projected win % of 55.7. Multiplied over 162 games, you get a projected win-loss record of 90-72.
Taking the top and bottom limits of the standard deviations for the runs scored and runs allowed numbers, you get a range of projected Rangers’ records that stretches from 87-75 to 93-69.
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
171 innings for Milly
What would that leave him short? 9?
by BEW on Nov 15, 2008 3:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
projection systems
You’d think that front offices would have some way of using projections, right? Wonder if they have proprietary systems, or look at the same things we look at?
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 15, 2008 4:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
If they didn't use projection systems
I would be really, really disappointed.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 5:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know for a fact that the Mariners didn't in the Bavasi era.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2008 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
suprise suprise
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 1:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they likely look at most of the same stuff.
Just much more intensively, and I’m sure a lot of it’s proprietary.
I’ll bet the biggest difference is the defensive components.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2008 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rupe
One other thing of note:
Rupe is not very good. He had a tRA+ of 66, a tRA of 6.00 and Bill James has his ERA increasing next season. His peripherals aren’t that strong and I haven’t been very impressed when I watched him pitch last season. I noticed that Hindman had Rupe moving into the primary set-up man position next year when he projected the 2009 roster earlier this off-season. That would be a disaster.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 5:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Rupe
had a 3.80 ERA on August 5th, he ended the season terribly inflating his numbers a bit. At 89.1 innings, he led the majors in IP for a releiver, and obviously wore down at the end.. I see him bouncing back and being a solid 7th inning option next year.
by tyd3311 on Nov 15, 2008 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
He had about as many IP as he had in 2006 and 2007 combined. Decrease his work load a bit and he’ll be just fine as a 7th inning guy. I would like to see his K/BB ratio improve a bit, but as long as he continues being stingy on the extra base hits like he was in the first half of his 2008 season, he’s a great option for this bullpen.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I disagree
First, I don’t there is anything that proves that he wasn’t getting relatively lucky early on in the season. His K/BB ratio was pretty bad and he doesn’t strike out many people at all, to begin with. He is a ground ball pitcher, which of course helps him a lot. But I have some reservations about relying on a pitcher who seems to succeed by allowing an unusually low amount of extra base hits. Rupe is a okay pitcher to fill out the pitching staff, since he is seen as a guy who gets ground balls and has nice stuff. But I don’t think he is suited for an important, set-up role in the pen, since he doesn’t strike many people out and has some questionable metrics.
Second, I don’t think Rupe is any better than Loe. I would prefer to have Loe in the pen over Rupe. From 2005 to 2008, Loe was a pretty nice pitcher out of the pen.
As a reliever, he has posted a 84.1 IP, 94 H, 37 ER, 25 BB, 53 K, 3.95 ERA and a 1.41 WHIP. That is a K/BB ratio over 2 and of course he, like Rupe, gets a lot of ground balls. That is a sample size over many years, but it seems that he has consistently been a pretty decent bullpen pitcher. Even as a starter, Loe was a victim of bad defense more than anything. He had FIP’s of 4.67 and 4.93 in 2006 and 2007, when he worked primarily as a starter. I think it is odd that we look at Rupe as a sure thing to be in our pen in 2009, but we are talking about taking Loe off the 40 man roster. I just don’t think we can prove that Rupe is any better than Loe.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 15, 2008 8:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mind seeing Loe back in the bullpen next year
He had some pretty bad outings last year, but was overall pretty good. I was kind of surprised they didn’t give him as much time in the Majors as some other junk they threw in the bullpen.
With Rupe, remember what our bullpen has looked like this past season. Rupe isn’t ideal as a 7th inning guy in a bullpen like the Angels had last year, but he is one of the best options this current bullpen has. This offseason could change that, but he is one of the best options we have now.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Given what we had last season, Rupe was one of the better relievers. But, ideally it would be nice to add another set-up reliever (Wheeler, Cruz, or someone like that). I’d like to see Loe in the bullpen next season as well. I’d rather see people like Nippert, Loe, and Rupe used as long-relievers.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 16, 2008 12:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If you add a Wheeler or a Cruz you're gonna be paying a premium for a setup reliever
which I absolutely hate.
Other than the very top relievers (basically, closers) relievers are too unreliable from one year to the next for me to be comfortable committing serious dollars to one.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 16, 2008 2:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think it depends
Generally, I agree. Spending a lot of money on virtually any reliever is a bad idea, even if they are really good. In fact, I think the idea of spending something like 10-15 million dollars on a closer is kinda nuts (KRod, Fuentes, etc). Just given how few innings they pitch, it seems like a misallocation of resources.
But, I think Wheeler, for instance, is in line to make 3.2 million in 2009. He is under contract for about the same amount for 2010 and 2011 as well. I don’t think that would be a terrible gamble, given that his ERAs for the last 4 years has been 2.21, 2.52, 5.39, and 3.12. His tRA has declined, but he has also had some really good seasons by any statistic in the not too distant past. If the Rays need to shed some payroll and are willing trade him, I’d be interested. Cruz, minus one horrible year, has been relatively good. If he could come for like 3 years, 11 million or something, I’d consider it. Of course, I wouldn’t go much higher. (of course I guess that is unlikely, but that is comparable to what Damaso Marte got)
On a side note, it seems that any reliever would also be more prone to fluctuations in their ERA from year to year because of the small sample size. One or two bad outings per year can significantly change their ERA with so few innings pitched.
I agree that investing serious money in a middle reliever is a bad idea in general. Nevertheless, I think if you are talking about 3 million dollars for a relatively consistent, and talented set-up man or 12 million for a good reliever who just happens to be given the closer role, I’m not so sure that I wouldn’t prefer to take a 3 million dollar gamble. I would be even more willing to take that risk if the potential middle reliever has really good stuff or was relatively consistent. Either way, I definitely understand where you are coming from.
ANDY. SONNANSTINE.
by Stephen Rushin on Nov 16, 2008 2:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rupe
really isn’t much better than Loe and Littleton. And Mathis is somewhere back of that group.
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 15, 2008 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Rupe >> Littleton >> Loe > Mathis.
I think Rupe will improve from last year. He looked like he tired out a little at the end of the season.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 15, 2008 7:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Littleton .> Loe > Rupe > Mathis
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Nov 15, 2008 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would be interested in hearing why you rank the pitchers that way, Ed
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Usability
Which is not a calculated ranking. It’s based on situational use. My possibly deranged thinking goes like this:
Littleton – you know what he has, and his limit of effectiveness (about five batters in one inning, or seven batters in two innings). He has a sinker and a slider, with a hittable fast ball and a not so useful change. He can hold the team in place for a short stint but is not expected to set up, close, or get critical mid inning outs.
Loe – the big sinker guy comes with the expectation he can hold up over multiple innings and get critical outs. And he can. And sometimes doesn’t, because he does not always have that great sinker working consistently.
Rupe – has the odd characteristic of some of his best stuff being hittable, which leads to flashes of dependability, which in turn leads to using him in situations he can’t handle.
Mathis – good guy, simply doesn’t have the effectiveness or the command to miss bats consistently in MLB. Could be wrong here, but I vew him as an exemplary case of a sturdy minor league starter who creates expections for continued performance, but then tops out somewhere below the AAAA level. Looks better than he is.
That’s the ’situational use" take.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Nov 16, 2008 12:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, Ed
I have incredibly hard time ranking relievers because their numbers tend to be so inconsistent. A bad outing or two can completely destroy an otherwise solid season and a good/lucky run can mask relatively poor performance.
In my opinion, the key advantage that Rupe and Mathis have relative to Loe and Littleton is options. Entering 2009, Mathis will have two options, Rupe will have one, and Loe and Littleton will have none. Given the often transient role of a middle/long reliever, it is vital to have a few guys that you can shuttle between AAA and MLB during the season.
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rupe is better than Loe
If they shoehorn him into a setup role, that’s not his fault.
He excelled at LR and as a 6th / 7th inning guy, but his innings and frequency of use caught up to him, imo.
He has the stuff to stick in the pen, as does Littleton.
Loe and Mathis are certified garbage.
Bring up Matt West '09
by Chase Irwin on Nov 16, 2008 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
rupe
pitched in a lot of mop up innings…very few games where the rangers were ahead, and IIRC the majority of his games were when the rangers were up or down by 3+ runs (usually down)
i did a bigbigbig post on it a while back – comparing wright and rupe
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 1:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If that's even close to true about MaxRam. . .
. . . I’m officially changing my endorsement for Catcher of the Future.
by philkid3 on Nov 15, 2008 5:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
if that's even close to true about MaxRam...
…why not let him be a DH and let the gold glove caliber backstop take care of the catching?
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 15, 2008 7:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what your scouts and development people say
If they believe with some hard work, Ramirez can develop into at least a league average defensive catcher, then you have to continue his development behind the plate.
by tyd3311 on Nov 15, 2008 7:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget Smoak coming up
You are likely looking to DH Davis when Smoak comes around. Leaving Ramirez behind the plate solves a lot of potential problems for the 2010 season.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 15, 2008 11:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
personally
i think that davis either sticks at 3b or moves to OF rather than DH
but we shall see
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 1:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
?...
I’ve already seen the team say they are putting him at 1B this year with Hank at DH.
I suppose they could put him in RF (which may depend on what Cruz does this year) when Smoak is ready, but I don’t think 3B is going to be an option for him in the future.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 16, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, i meant in the future…not now
sorry
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The OF is too loaded
With Hamilton, Cruz, Murphy, Boggs, and Borbon. I wouldn’t count out the team wanting to bring Byrd back and trading some of those OFs for other pieces. I don’t see the advantage of taking the hit in defense by moving Davis to the OF for Smoak.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 16, 2008 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think "crowded" might be a better term than "loaded"
When I see the word loaded, I infer “chock full-o-badasses.”
In our outfield, the badass count stops at one.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 18, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True
Working on two, if Cruz does what I think he will.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Nov 18, 2008 11:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Looked like a completely different guy out there this year.
He needs to be the no doubt about it, name in the lineup every single day RF next year, no question about it.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 18, 2008 4:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but...
our one badass is so badass that he should count as 2 badasses.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Nov 18, 2008 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Quick, someone page lsj!
That’s a sig waitin’ to happen, right there!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
by Rodney on Nov 18, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That was good
But I found a better one already.
"Somewhere out there, between 14-32 BBWAA NL MVP voters are trying to get cheaper winter heating by drilling a hole in the microwave." - Jeff at LoL
by lonestarJon on Nov 18, 2008 8:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about!!!!
David Murphy is a beastly beast of a beasty kind of guy!
A .320 OBP from a COF is good!
Really good!
He’s the best!
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 18, 2008 4:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Because having a .900 OPS from the catcher spot is such an incredible advantage.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 16, 2008 12:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
900 OPS catchers are MVP candidates
The only reason that I can come up with to not simply go with MaxRam as your primary catcher is the notion that it would be good to have a savvy game caller providing guidance for some of the Rangers’ new pitchers. Personally, I would like to see MaxRam catching Millwood and Padilla next year and Teagarden/Laird catching the rest. Padilla/Millwwod can teach MaxRam the ins and outs of game-calling and Laird/Teagarden can do the same for the younger pitcchers.
by spurdynasty on Nov 16, 2008 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like Chris Davis and Max Ramirez are going to be the same type of player.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Nov 15, 2008 6:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
CD - Max
I think Davis will see his BA dip some, Max will probably hit for a higher average and get on base at a higher rate (he’s had a .400+ OBP everywhere he’s been). Davis likely will out slug him.
But yeah, as far as something like OPS+, I wouldn’t be surprised if the two ended up with similar numbers. I would drown both of them in playing time next year if I was in charge.
I don't hate everything. In fact, I think LSB is just groovy.
by tricer on Nov 15, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Big plus one
Tricer and BT driving the Maximus bandwagon…
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
by Brian Thomas on Nov 15, 2008 7:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The arrival of Justin Smoak is going to complicate things around here.
I predict that either Davis or Ramirez will be dealt within the next year.
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Nov 15, 2008 8:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather deal...
Davis than Smoak when Smoak is ready.
I would really like to keep both, but Smoak will be under the Rangers control for longer, and Davis is with Boras I believe.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 16, 2008 10:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And the sooner the better.
This team cannot afford to be platooning prospects and screwing up their value.
See: Jarrod Saltalamacchia
GREINKE HO!!!!!
by oc on Nov 15, 2008 8:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
and development
that kid lost a LOT of value during his time in texas because of fucking ron washington
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Nov 16, 2008 1:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1,000,000
Fuck Wash.
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 16, 2008 10:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and Brett Gardner
fuck him too
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Nov 16, 2008 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
It’s funny that some Yankee fans are actually expecting big things out of that guy long term.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
MVP votes are the new OBP.
by thedirkatron on Nov 16, 2008 1:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And here I thought...
Spurdynasty was going to have a fanpost that wouldn’t get rec’d up. Silly me.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Nov 16, 2008 12:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He's using sock puppets, nobody in their right minds would rec these posts
signed,
OC
"I would say that our gaping hole isn’t nearly as gaping as the A’s hole [was] or Mariner’s would be." - tyd3311
by lonestarJon on Nov 16, 2008 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
