Monday morning stuff
T.R. Sullivan has a new mailbag column up. The most relevant parts:
Injuries have limited Bonderman to a combined 40 starts over the past two seasons, and he went 14-13 with a 4.80 ERA. He signed for $12.5 million for both 2009 and 2010. Given the Rangers' financial situation, it's unlikely that they would pursue him.
For the past couple of years, we've heard about how the Ranger payroll was "player specific" and how they had the financial flexibility to get aggressive with certain free agents. In particular, they went hard after Dice-K and Barry Zito.
But now, their "financial situation" is such that they apparently are stuck with the payroll they've had the past couple of years. That is worrisome.
And then there is this:
The Red Sox have made it clear that they are not interested in trading Buchholz under any circumstances.
So...those who believe that the Rangers shouldn't trade a catcher to the BoSox without getting Buchholz can, apparently, scratch the BoSox off the list.
Evan Grant, meanwhile, says that the economy being the way it is, the Rangers may not offer Milton Bradley arbitration, because if he accepts and they cannot trade Hank Blalock or Gerald Laird, that might push them into an area where they feel "uncomfortable."
0 recs |
125 comments
|
Comments
Are you thinking the economy has much effect on the Rangers payroll?
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Dec 1, 2008 9:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn't it?
I don’t like the idea of the Rangers limiting their payroll so severely, but I can’t really blame Hicks for holding the line at such a time. And if you’re going to be “player specific” on the payroll, Bonderman sure isn’t the guy to be specific about, IMHO.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 9:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I Agree
They’ll probably sell less season tickets, less tickets in general, the parking revenue from that, and a lot of concessions. People will still show up, maybe in fewer numbers. And they’re going to buy cheaper seats, eat/drink less, etc. This should affect teams throughout baseball.
Then again, maybe people will go to more games because it’s cheaper than taking the family on a vacation. Who knows? But I have a hard time believing teams won’t be taking some kind of hit.
And, no, another oft-injured pitcher isn’t the type of guy the Rangers need to be considering signing unless it’s truly a bargain of a deal. In fact, I’m tired of those types of guys around here and would like to see them go with players who’ve shown they can stay healthy. Same goes for Bradley. As much as I like him, I can’t really see the point in spend significant money on a guy you can’t count on. It’s hard to say this but I’m glad he’ll be gone and I lament the fact they picked up Blalock’s option.
by Black Francis on Dec 1, 2008 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
However,
the MLB contract that brought money to the league and started a miniboom in player spending apparently hasn’t impacted the Rangers.
By the way, for all the folks caterwauling that ARod would kill the Rangers payroll, since he accounted for roughly a quarter of the Rangers payroll (which was near $100 million back then), must be kicking themselves for us having a SS who also is around a quarter of the current payroll. At least back then our SS was a MVP level player.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Dec 1, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
au contraire
the MLB contract that brought money to the league and started a miniboom in player spending apparently hasn’t impacted the Rangers.
If it weren’t for that we’d probably be seeing a fire sale, with the Rangers dumping Millwood and/or Padilla, not keeping Blalock and Laird at a minimum.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is that supposed to be comforting?
They’re already in the bottom ten. Is that where they belong indefinitely?
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying I like it
just saying the way I think it is.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
We as fans have been fed a line by Hicks that was basically something that couldn’t be disproven at the time, but would eventually come due. While events may not be completely under his control, his reaction can’t continue to be among the handful of cheapest in the league indefinitely without things getting pretty ugly again.
I’ll say this, if the club starts to turn things around like it appears it might be, and there is nothing more from Hicks but bottom rung spending and passed opportunities to add worthwhile players, I’m going to be screaming my lungs off in any forum I can find, and I hope a whole lot of people are in the same boat. He needs to sell the team if he can’t handle the financial requirements of owning a franchise in this system without a salary cap.
He’s already seen revenue and attendence tank (though not to the point that his spending has) as a result of his management. If he’s determined to have all of these spirals continue, he needs to be even more miserable as owner of the Rangers than half-owner of Liverpool FC.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
2nd paragraph
ditto and amen. Given his comments about player specific spending and all that I fully expect him to pony up for 2010 and beyond when the talent on the major league club is arriving and maturing. If he doesn’t, then it becomes apparent he doesn’t really care about winning at all.
Hicks has been a human roller coaster. He doesn’t act like a strategically thinking businessman, he acts like a 12-yr. old girl just overreacting to every happenstance.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here is what I don't get
presumably the drop in spending will affect all teams, not just the Rangers. And my guess is that other clubs will be far more affected since other parts of the country are in far dire straights – do you think Detroit is going to be upping payroll anytime soon? Texas has been relatively spared much of this economic disaster because the housing bubble that has helped put people in debt was milder there. Obviously Texans have lost investment dollars and have job worries, but they aren’t getting foreclosed on at the rate of other parts of the country.
If every club in the league curtails spending, then player salaries will have to drop considerably. And the MLBPA won’t be able to whine about collusion etc when their top players are “only” getting $15 million instead of $20 in this economy. I think there will be a huge advantage going forward (say a 2-4 year time frame) for the “cash rich” clubs with minimum dollars committed on the books. The Rangers – being a mid-large market club with a light payroll – would have an advantage. It almost makes me think that this is a weird form of posturing that will allow the Rangers to remain flexible for possible bargain-hunting in the near future.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
But still doesn’t justify even thinking about not picking up Bradley’s contract
by BuckyB on Dec 1, 2008 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What Justifies That
…is the fact that he never has and will apparently never stay healthy. Money aside, you want your players to BE IN THE LINEUP when it counts, which is every game.
Bradley is an awesome hitter. I don’t think he’ll duplicate last year’s performance no matter where he ends up, but the guy has a very good approach at the plate. His injury problems are unfortunate.
by Black Francis on Dec 1, 2008 5:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Accept that he will only be around for 120 games or so
and you’ll realize how great he is for the team. Last year, he was pretty much a guarantee to get on base at least twice in each game he played in with very good power. That is worth a lot even if it is only in 120 games. I’ll take that over a player like Pat Burrell for 150 games.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
by Gdawg on Dec 2, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the DFW area is hurting also
maybe not to the extent as some other areas, but my company just had some layoffs a few weeks ago and there’s probably more coming.
I think Rangers’ economic concerns are absolutely legit. The attendance last year can’t give them a warm fuzzy feeling.
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Dec 1, 2008 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
The Institute came out and said today that we’ve been in recession since last December.
I think it’s more than just foreclosures. While there are a lot of defense contractors here, there is lots and lots of tech and banking, too. I fear the job losses are coming.
by Black Francis on Dec 1, 2008 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if we declline a good draft pick
because we are afraid of getting milton bradley on a 1 year deal… im going to lose it.
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Dec 1, 2008 9:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Now that would be grounds for calling Tom Hicks a cheap bastard.
"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 Dec 1, 2008 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Hopefully this is a matter of the beat guy being led in the wrong direction, but this would be so stupid. It’s shoot yourself in the foot dumb. It’s borderline Plaxico dumb.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Somebody said the magic word

"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
by Maximilian on Dec 1, 2008 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec
"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 Dec 1, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
needs a bullet hole photoshopped on his leg....
then it would be rec
mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.
by Jayslick on Dec 1, 2008 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
haha
yeah… but to bad the bullet didn’t him in the testicles. OK.. sorry. But I hate the NY Giants.
A Texas Designer's Map of the World
by hurlerhurley on Dec 1, 2008 10:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Evan Grant, meanwhile, says that theeconomyTom Hicks being the wayithe is, the Rangers may not offer Milton Bradley arbitration, because if he accepts and they cannot trade Hank Blalock or Gerald Laird, that might push them into an area where they feel “uncomfortable.”
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 Dec 1, 2008 9:47 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
the extent of the economy's impact on baseball
is a huge question mark, it seems, and it is the reason that this offseason has been so weird (for lack of a better word). No big FAs have signed yet, which is almost unheard of, and many teams are selling low on veterans just to clear payroll. The gap between the haves and have nots and the number of have nots are growing, and this is worrisome not just for the Rangers but for all of baseball.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 9:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
keep in mind
that I am not a Hicks apologist. To the contrary, I think he is mind-numbingly ignorant when it comes to running a professional sports team. But I do think this extends far beyond the Rangers and the frugality of our owner.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uncertainty
and you could add the baseball has more uncertainty in player development and contract guarantees than other sports, making baseball owners perhaps a bit more nervous. Hicks’ own stupidity led to him getting bit a few times in the past, which only increases his uncertainty and caution in a time like this.
The Rangers are probably going to lose money next season no matter what they do. The team has been losing for a long while, and even a very strong start would not increase ticket sales much. The fans will need some fairly sustained success to become believers to the point of spending money on tickets. And if I’m Daniels, I might have a hard time selling Hicks on the wisdom of spending big on players that will just guarantee another 3rd place finish.
It’s not that important to spend big money right now. Next winter I’d be more impatient if there is a player that can push a talented young core forward into contention.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
and the Rangers have invested very heavily in their minor league system the last few years, handing out non-trivial contracts to multiple first round picks (Beavan, Borbon, Smoak). Those are upfront costs that should pay off in the future, and likely will, but right now we have to wait.
Honestly, I don’t mind waiting another season until the kids are more likely ready. A young team finishing in 2nd or 3rd place is far more exciting than an old team doing so, and its not exactly the ideal time to make a run for it. The Angels were very solid last year, and while they may regress by losing KRod or Tex, its unlikely they’ll fall far enough back to make a run obvious. Add in the A’s apparently wanting to make a half-hearted stab this year with Holliday, it doesn’t feel quite right.
I don’t blame Hicks at all for being cautious – if the time is right, he’ll spend. But shelling out dollars for iffy veterans is a failed proposition, a path that the Rangers have mistakenly taken too many times before.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 10:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
It’s not really like there is anyone out there who seems too willing to throw around silly money for players. I think the big FAs will sign for packages similar to the past, but those middling guys are going to take a huge hit IMO. Why would a team trade for Bonderman at 12.5 million when you could sign a guy like Looper for half that? As for the Rangers, I can’t blame them. How many fans are going to turn out next season? It is an uncertain environment and they may feel that now is not the time to take risks, especially when the team likely won’t compete next season.
Fire Ron Washington
by pblack on Dec 1, 2008 9:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps
but I might actually disagree with this statement as well:
I think the big FAs will sign for packages similar to the past, but those middling guys are going to take a huge hit IMO.
I think we have already seen the maximum bid that will go to any FA this offseason in the Yankees offer to Sabathia. I don’t think Teixeira and Burnett and Lowe and some of these other guys will get the (relatively) big offers they envisioned because we just aren’t hearing about bidding wars right now. All we are hearing about are potential landing spots for the big names, and that pool of teams is limited (Red Sox, Yanks, Angels…). It seems every move is contingent on another move to the point that we are stuck in some sort of stasis, with the have nots sitting around hoping that there are far more Lohse’s than Silva’s this year.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You know
This
may not offer Milton Bradley arbitration, because if he accepts and they cannot trade Hank Blalock or Gerald Laird, that might push them into an area where they feel “uncomfortable.”
is bullsh*t.
I would think there’s always going to be a buyer for Laird, at least – probably Blalock too. It’s not that we “can’t” trade them it’s just that we might not get the maximum return for them. I’m not sure whether this perception that we can’t make any dump trades if we need to comes from JD, Nolan, or is a collective thing, but it’s incorrect. Sometimes you have to make a dump trade. End of story. It’s not a preferable thing to do, but I would think it would be much more preferable overall to sell low on Laird or Blalock than losing a sandwich pick because you’re afraid to take the 5% chance that Milton Bradley accepts arbitration.
"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 Dec 1, 2008 9:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
someone will take Laird in a salary dump in a heartbeat.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
if we HAVE to trade Laird and/or Blalock
then all of our leverage is gone, and we are no better than the Marlins.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
we already have to trade Laird
I’m not buying this whole “we’re prepared to go into the season with 4 catchers” thing, and I doubt any GMs are either.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
we don't HAVE to trade Laird
but we do HAVE to trade a catcher, I agree, just because there is no way to divvy out ABs to all of them without stunting development. But if economics come into play, then Laird becomes the guy we have to trade, and our leverage is gone.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bulls Eye
The Rangers are the Marlins, or will soon be so.
by SanDiegoKev on Dec 1, 2008 12:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Blalock is very tradeable.
Not a real need for a first baseman who can’t show that he can play for more than 15 consecutive games. Maybe midseason if he stays healthy, but this is why I had a big problem with picking up his option.
by FuturePants on Dec 1, 2008 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay.
So…those who believe that the Rangers shouldn’t trade a catcher to the BoSox without getting Buchholz can, apparently, scratch the BoSox off the list.
Fine. Good luck to Boston as they move forward with whatever sub-mediocrity they can find on the open market.
by Athos on Dec 1, 2008 9:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm inclined to agree
With Salty re-inspiring some faith (and value) with his winter-league performances, I’m not sure I really want to trade him for Masterson or Bowden, neither of which I’m frankly that high on – at least not straight up. But the BoSox have both of those two so hyped up (Masterson in particular) I really don’t think it’s any more likely that we’d get a second player of any real value packaged with them than it is we steal Buch away with the right package along with Salty. I’m coming around to the fact that either someone gets slightly gypped in a BoSox/Rangers deal or we don’t deal at all.
"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 Dec 1, 2008 10:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the Sox have hyped him up that much
they are mostly letting his numbers speak for themselves. He skipped right over AAA ball and went straight to the majors. While there he put up an ERA of 3.16 and in the playoffs had an ERA of 1.86. If he stays in the bullpen his numbers look to only get better. If he is converted to a starter the numbers should stay about the same.
Salty hasn’t proven he can do it in the Majors yet with his bat and more importantly his defense. If he eventually moves away from catcher he will be an average 1st baseman.
by drabidea on Dec 1, 2008 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One problem
If we have to trade one catcher, then are we going to get a better offer than Masterson (even if he’s overvalued)?
There just aren’t enough trade partners out there to be picky, and we’re going to be disappointed with any catcher trade we make.
by cstorm15 on Dec 1, 2008 10:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we are in a position of "have to" yet.
We’ve got time. There should be takers for Laird since he shouldn’t cost as much. If we have to roll with Salt and Tea splitting time in ’09, I can live with that.
by Athos on Dec 1, 2008 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I can't. All three of the guys should be playing full time here or in OKC or even in Frisco.
No more wasting service and development time using guys as caddies at the major league level.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Catchers don't even play full time
for the most part. You’re costing Teagarden and Saltalamacchia maybe 100 AB by having them split time, and that’s assuming that each is healthy all season, which seems very unlikely given both of their track records.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 1:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So, assume we trade Laird and Max. You'd advocate using them both at the major league level rather than one in Arlington with a cheapo vet as a caddie and one in OKC?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 2:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I don’t see it as a bad situation at all.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We disagree on this issue. Strongly.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To respond though
Let’s take your scenario, where Laird and Ramirez are gone, and let’s trade Salty too. For you it would be better to have Teagarden catching, what, 145 games, with no ready, suitable replacement? What if his arm wears down? What if he gets hurt for six weeks? If it’s a good idea to have Ramirez in AAA, it’s a good idea to have Ramirez in AAA. I think that it’s very, very unlikely that you’re going to get through this next season with both Teagarden and Saltalamacchia physically capable of playing 150 games but only playing the equivalent of 81.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially with Teagarden
Teagarden has been known to be an injury-prone player, and its highly likely that he will get hurt once this season. We could stash Max in AAA, and sign a veteran to back up Tea, and if Tea gets hurt, just bring Max up to split time.
In Smoak We Trust
by Smoak Some on Dec 1, 2008 3:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Rephrase that as a clear thought and I'll be happy to answer.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And here's an example
In Colorado Chris Iannetta, who I think has a fair amount of similarities with Salty, splits time with Torrealba, who has some similarities with Teagarden (which aren’t relevant here). In splitting time this year, Iannetta had 333 ABs. Was his value hurt?
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In that one case? No.
So I take you thought we did an awesome job handling Salty this year?
Bringing him up to caddie for Laird when Melhuse went down was a stroke of genius, I suppose.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he got about 150 ABs too few, and mainly I just didn’t think that Laird should have stood in his way. His injury problems were pretty unlucky, though.
I’m not suggesting that he be a caddie, nor that he lose any playing time to Laird, though, so I’m not sure what that question has to do with my take.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you.
At some level of development, 60 games of major league ball is much better than 100 AAA games.
Maybe not so much with a guy like Max who is so craptastic defensively as a catcher that catching 100 A Games might still be of use.
Nolan Ryan is the Greatest Pitcher ever, because Google says so.
"BTW I’m officially welching ab03. Yeah I planned too all along, but I figured I’d try to get off the hook with double or nothing first."- Sharky
by DJCahill on Dec 1, 2008 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
seems like the chorus of "catchers have maximum trade value, look at the Pierzynski trade"
has softened quite a bit in the last few months, almost to the point that people are realizing that catchers don’t really have any more trade value than any other position player.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Dec 1, 2008 2:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not that simple
catchers’ value fluctuates over time like any other commodity. I think it’s always high relative to some other positions, probably 2nd only to pitching most of the time. But trade value seems to be down in general right now.
It makes one glad Teixeira was traded when he was.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
They’re valuable, but every position is subject to supply/demand. And since the high value of catchers is largely tied up in the lack of supply, when there is greater supply, this particular market is even more impacted than the others. Again, I’d point to the shortage of 3B until an influx a few years ago and the same thing with CF more recently. Positions go in cycles, and catcher is going on an upswing right now in terms of quantity.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what you mean by that Pierzynski trade reference. Sabean did a good job of selling high on Liriano.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he means that it was an isolated incident
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I was kidding.
I just love bringing up ECH’s now-infamous completely nonsensical Sabean/Liriano quote.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
therein lies the catcher problem
We get rid of Laird we’re stuck with inexperienced catchers that don’t have much major league experience. I damn sure would rather roll with a Laird and TT, Max. Rather than a Salty and TT, Max.
A Texas Designer's Map of the World
by hurlerhurley on Dec 1, 2008 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
but if the owner is risking the team’s future by not capitalizing on draft picks because of 12M or so but gives bad contracts to Jennings and Broussard, I’m going to lose it.
If an owner is that tight-ass then he shouldn’t own a team.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 10:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
12M
that’s a lot of money to pay a player that is every bit as risky as Jennings. Do you advocate signing Sheets? I do, but I also understand the risks involved.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't be serious
comparing Bradley to Jennings.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 10:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley is not an injury risk?
Come on, you’re fooling yourself. He didn’t go on the DL but still spent how long cooling his heels? Why do you think no one is itching to give a 1000 OPS guy a multi-year deal, despite his character issues? Because he has never been healthy for a full season.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Some flaws in your argument
1. Giving Bradley a multi year deal to 1 year is totally different.
2. Bradley at his best is one of the best in the league while Jennings at his best is average
3. Even if Bradley plays 120 games a year, he’s still worth 12M
4. Bradley didn’t all of a sudden play 126 games by accident. Keeping him at DH keeps him fresh and less risk of injury.
5. Get rid of other salary like cat @ 4M, Byrd at 1.8M, Benoit @ 2.25M (if it’s possible)
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I am playing devil's advocate here
for the most part, but I can understand why a team might be more hesitant this year to offer arb. I think it’s a no brainer myself to offer him arbitration. If he ends up accepting you sort it out later.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley might accept arb.
And take the 12 mil/1 year, since the economy is so low right now that teams won’t be shelling out huge contacts to players that can’t really play 120+ games in the outfield. Bradley might just take the contact, play another year in Tex, DH/OF, and see where the economy is the following season
In Smoak We Trust
by Smoak Some on Dec 1, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His history
is a bigger problem than the economy.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say he wasn't an injury risk
Just noting that there is a difference between a pitcher with arm problems that caused him to miss a whole year and a player who had to sit out every few games bc of various injuries.
by BuckyB on Dec 1, 2008 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A compensation round pick can be made up for easily in LA.
It’s not optimal, but other than the real premium picks I never mind too much giving up picks cause you can just take the money you would’ve allocated to a guy and spend it on some nice LA or Asian UFA’s and still be getting a good influx of young talent.
The key thing is you have to be willing to spend that money every single year.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So we can expect them to make up for not wanting to spend money by them wanting to spend extra money? Yes they’ve been solid in their amateur spending, moreso than on their major league roster, but this sort of marginal trade-off seems a little iffy. Their presumed success internationally over the past few years hasn’t been a triumph of spending but of Preller & co trying to outwork everyone. Even BA has said as much. They haven’t once spent the kind of money on a guy that this pick would probably cost.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They've tried to spend the money on Inoa, Tazawa and they made a run at one of the guys the Padres signed for over a million so I have to assume we offered him in that basic range.
And I’d very much disagree that they haven’t spent that much. Lots of compensation picks sign in the 600-700k range that we’ve spent on guys like Ahn and, iirc, Martin Perez cost around that much. And my guess is there are other guys we would’ve loved to have spent on but decided to spend it elsewhere, but that’s just pure conjecture.
And we’re talking about different things. If they decline the chance at the pick their doing so because of the 10mm they’d owe MOB, not the ~750K they’d owe the comp pick.
Also, I was saying losing the pick isn’t that big of deal cause you can make up for it by spending in LA. Not saying they would, just saying losing out on a pick doesn’t always mean not being able to add talent if you’re still willing to spend that money.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Player specific
doesn’t really pertain to Bonderman, does it?
When building their business plan, the Rangers have to factor in the possibility that Bradley could accept arb. If he does, it will probably result in a contract approaching $10 million. That would be a steep price to pay for a sandwich pick if they’re already planning on doing without Bradley on the field.
I know that they could alter their plan but doing so would make the acquisition of a sandwich pick take on more precedence than the on field plans for the year. The Ranger system needs a steady influx of talent each year, after our huge haul of ‘07. They don’t have to stockpile draft picks to the detriment of other goals.
Having said all this, I recognize that the chances that Bradley will accept arb are low.
by mcgee48c on Dec 1, 2008 10:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Rangers would be foolish
to take a Buchholz or bust approach with the Red Sox. Buch is certainly talented but he comes with a fair share of question marks and it is very likely that the Red Sox could still put the best deal on the table using Bowden or Masterson and another prospect. I would have not complaints if we turned Tex and Mahay into Andrus, Feliz, Jones, Harrison, Bowden/Hagadone and Bard.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 10:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Bowden/Hagadone
is not on the market either.
That’s the same as you including Buchholz in that list.
Wasn’t there rumors that Cincy wanted a 3B and had interest in Blalock?
How far off are we if we traded Salty and Blalock for Bailey, Juan Francisco (3B prospect) and Matt Maloney?
Is that a close deal, am I way off?
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 10:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he means Bowden or Hagadone
not both at the same time.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then no
I think Salty is worth more than that.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 10:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you'll be surprised
I doubt Salty could return more than Bowden + Bard.
My guess is that the only way the Red Sox would trade Buchholz is if the Rangers dealt them Tea, and neither team would be particularly comfortable making that deal. Both teams would be considerably happier with a Salty for Bowden/Bard deal.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This raises a sore point with me...
People like Evan Grant insist that if the Rangers want to trade prospects for great young major leaguers, they’ll have to give up their very best prospects…“no substitutions” to quote Grant. This supposedly is a product of having such great prospects, which makes zero sense. Yet the Red Sox apparently don’t have to give up their best. Why are the Rangers the on;y team obligated to give up their very best prospects in trades?
I propose a 5-year moratorium on trading any young Ranger pitchers who throw over 90 mph.
by Ajax68 on Dec 1, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
b/c EG
tends to be a dumbass quite often
mormons stole me and held me against my will with Oklahoma beer and 12+ hour work days.
by Jayslick on Dec 1, 2008 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hardly a dumbass
compared to some of the others in the Dallas / Fort Worth Media.
Evan does a helluva lot better than most.
A Texas Designer's Map of the World
by hurlerhurley on Dec 1, 2008 11:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't mean both in a deal
but rather one or the other. I have read that the Sox will not offer Buchholz alone, or two of Bowden, Masterson, or Hagadone, in order to get Salty.
What I am saying is that I would take one of those three plus Bard and be happy. It is worth it to drive a hard bargain up to a point, but it is foolish to not trade a catcher who is not necessarily in our long term plans for two very live arms.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 10:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's cool
I still understand your point :-).
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry but there's got
to be a team that offers more for Salty than either Bowden or Hagadone.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
obviously
a lot depends on the scouting reports with these guys. Hagadone is a guy who we just haven’t seen much of at the professional level, and Scouts hadn’t seen much of him before the draft, so he is relatively unknown. The fact that he is coming off a serious injury makes him all the more unknown. But if the Rangers already have a good feel for what he can do, then he is exactly the sort of player you should target in a trade. If he explodes onto the scene next year flies through the farm system as some people expect he will, then he will be much harder to pry away. Bard is another huge question mark. He has easy high 90’s velocity and a very solid second pitch. He is the sort of strikeout/groundout bullpen arm that every team covets. Hagadone and Bard would be an intriguing package, in my opinion.
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Salty has sucked balls in the bigs
Why would you expect to get a number 1 or 2 minor league pitching prospect from a not-far-removed World Series winner in return? I understand if you set the bar high, but you have to realize that until Salt shows something in the big leagues, he isn’t going to be worth that.
by BuckyB on Dec 1, 2008 10:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
look at his OBP+
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 Dec 1, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley
What are the chances that Bradley accepts arbitration? Probably not even 1 in 10. And if he does accept the chances that we couldn’t trade him OR Blalock Or Laird for a bag of sunflower seeds? Essentially zero. If Hicks is going to deny us a sandwich pick trying to avoid that infintesimal risk I don’t see how we ever justify signing another player, because while all moves have some risks, this is about as low as it ever gets.
As for Bonderman I am perfectly fine taking a pass on him. Sure it could work out, but too much money and not enough performance while healthy for my taste. Offering arbitration to Bradley is orders of magnitude more sensible than chasing Bonderman
by Dalman on Dec 1, 2008 10:40 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is ... disconcerting
A few weeks ago we were all wondering if the Rangers should offer Milt a multi-year contract and now the Rangers are giving up a sandwich pick out of fear that Milt will accept arbitration?
Nothing pithy here. Please move long.
by WyoRanger on Dec 1, 2008 10:59 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's just speculation
not a done deal
I'm undefeated in fights. Have I been in any? No. Thats because people know my f'ing status. Don't mess with the elite. - Miles
by Dirk Diggler on Dec 1, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Evan should rework it to say something like this
With the economy being the way it is, the Rangers may not offer Milton Bradley arbitration continue to raise ticket prices, because if he accepts and they cannot trade Hank Blalock or Gerald Laird they need more money to not spend on free agency or offer arbitration to maybe getting more draft picks, that might push them Ranger fans into an area where they feel “uncomfortable.”
In Smoak We Trust
by Smoak Some on Dec 1, 2008 11:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
With the FA begining really slowly...
I think chances are rising that Bradley accepts arbitraition…which I have no problem with.
There are worst things in the world than having Bradley on a 1 year deal.
by clinton33 on Dec 1, 2008 11:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
And I'm farly content
To measure what happens, when it happens. IOW, not making predictrions on Bradley or who will come back on a catcher trade.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 1, 2008 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thinking about this Bradley thing
If JD & co. is convinced that Bradley is going to be injured next season and not be worth anywhere near $!2 million or so, then I think you pass on offering arbitration. Yeah, you give up on the draft pick, but this is a lot of money. Say you think Bradley, risk and all, is worth $6 million a year. Then that amounts to paying $6 million for the 50th pick in the draft.
If he were at Type A, and you were talking about 2 picks, then you definitely do it. But $6 million for one pick in the 40s? I’d rather just not use that money and draft someone who is falling for price reasons.
by JBImaknee on Dec 1, 2008 1:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Truth
Sandwiches are overrated. Spend the money on a slider, or as Dirkatron said above, put it into a UFA.
Much ado about nothing.
by robert_d_wilfong on Dec 1, 2008 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what was that?
sandwiches are overrated? of the many Red Sox pitching prospects this site has collectively obsessed over for the past few months, Buchholz, Bowden, Masterson and Hagadone were all either sandwich or second round picks, as I recall. The Rangers seemingly hit on all three of their sandwich picks in ’07. I see no reason for them to be considered “overrated.”
by clark on Dec 1, 2008 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well a lot of the other guys we obsess over are big dollar LA signings, so...
As long as you’re willing to spend money in the UFA market and/or on guys who fall due to bonus demands I see no reason to get all up in arms over the loss of a pick in the 40’s.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2008 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But
It’s risk/reward. You risk losing 6 million dollars in your situation.
However, your potential reward is signing a 1000 OPS player to a one-year contract. We offer him arbitration again next year and he will surely be a Type A at that point if he puts up even close to a similar . If he begins this season the way he did last season, we can trade him for better players to a team making a playoff push or keep him for our own push.
by BuckyB on Dec 1, 2008 1:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"In particular, they went hard after Dice-K and Barry Zito."
Revisionist history. They went hard for a secure second-place finish, as we all know.
Smile when you call me Beat Weed!
by Clueless on Dec 1, 2008 1:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
They went
With what they thought would land the player. Ever lose out on an auction?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Dec 1, 2008 2:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn't lose, Ed
you purposely made the 2nd highest bid and you know it. (sarcasm here)
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Dec 1, 2008 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
t ball, that's the smartest thing you've said...
sorry you felt you had to puss out and claim sarcasm.
I respect Ed, but he ain’t Baseball Jesus,
They gave a half-ass effort…and we all know it.
Man up.
Smile when you call me Beat Weed!
by Clueless on Dec 1, 2008 11:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As Wade Phillips would say
Second place in a contest with several bidders isn’t that bad.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
More potential economic fallout
Yanks might not offer arb to Abreu.
Unrelatedly, Astros signed Mike Hampton.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. -- John Hinderacker
by Lucas on Dec 1, 2008 3:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Bradley
This doesn’t bother me at all.
If the Rangers aren’t interested in signing Bradley long-term, then they should just part ways. I could easily envision him accepting arbitration due to a lack of any multi-year offers and being very bitter that he’s having to play on just a one year deal. In my opinion, Bradley feels that he has earned/deserves big years and big money. The relationship could especially turn sour if Bradley’s 2009 season doesn’t measure up to the performance and health of 2008.
by Randy Richardson on Dec 1, 2008 5:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Red Sox prospects by Sickles
He did his top 20 recently and I was thinking. What about if we trade Salty without getting Buchholz, Bowden, or Masterson????
How about Salty for Bard, Almanzar, and Lin.
It might seem like a lot but wouldn’t it be a homerun for them by not trading neither of the 3 pitchers?
We get a pitcher with huge upside, a 3B prospect with huge upside, and an OFer that has great speed and defense while working on his power.
by Coolbean04 on Dec 1, 2008 6:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Our rankings would be a mess.
meet me at the mawwl... it's goin dowwn...
by oc on Dec 1, 2008 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bleh
I don’t like the package. Almanzar has upside, but there is just no telling with him. He ranked 8th in their system and 5th in the GCL, behind their high picks. He’s basically a raw supplemental first round pick. Lin is not a top ten prospect in their system, and his hitting tool is certainly unproven. Bard is a relief pitcher who does offer some promise, but who they think is a setup type most likely.
There is the possibility that you get something out of this package long term, but it’s just not worth Saltalamacchia imo, and I’m pretty sure that you could do better with someone else.
by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2008 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Screw BOS.
There is a dark horse out there. FLA perhaps, mebbe TB…I don’t know, but for all the hand-wringing and angst over this deal with Boston, I really see someone jumping up outta the bushes.
Totally unexpected is JD’s MO.
"...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 Dec 1, 2008 7:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Boston signs Teixeira,
Would you take a deal with Lars Anderson as the centerpiece? Say Lars, Bard, and Almanzar? Still not enough? This could give us more flexibility in trading for pitching.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Dec 1, 2008 7:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lars will be a top 30 or player
Salty for Lars and Almazar would be a win for Texas, but I would not be happy with the lack of impact pitching in the deal.
by laxtonto on Dec 1, 2008 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that's good value, maybe even great
But all that would do is move the logjam from catcher to first base. We’d then be in the position of having to try and trade a 1B for a pitcher, which may or may not be any easier than trading a catcher for a pitcher.
In memory of Ulysses Simpson Grant Stoner. RIP Lil Stoner.
by tricer on Dec 1, 2008 7:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But
Lars and Max(or Laird) together may net us something better than just one of the three alone.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
by tyd3311 on Dec 1, 2008 8:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be more than fine with our summer of '10 lineup sporting Davis in LF, Smoak at 1b and Lars at DH.
Davis isn’t real fast, but he’s no Adrian Gonzalez out there. Plus he seems to have pretty good baseball instincts and his arm would actually be a plus out there, imo.
Add in Hambone, Kinz, and an above average offensive catcher like Salty or Max and that team might score 1,000 runs.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
There are two kinds of men in this world: Men who make jump throws, and men who wish that they were Derek Jeter so that they could make jump throws.
by thedirkatron on Dec 2, 2008 5:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Davis in left field? Yikes
Right field? Maybe.
by Joey Matschulat on Dec 2, 2008 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















