Sunday morning things

by Adam J. Morris on May 18, 2008 11:15 AM CDT

Back to .500. Remarkable, given the start this team had.

Richard Durrett points out that the Rangers pitchers have a 3.70 ERA since April 25, when the turnaround began. And Vicente Padilla, with a 3.16 ERA on the season, has a 1.60 ERA over that stretch. The Rangers are 8-2 in games Padilla starts this season.

Josh Hamilton asked out of the game in the 5th inning last night, with Ron Washington saying that he asked Hamilton in spring training to let him know when he needed time out. Marlon Byrd did a pretty good Hamilton imitation last night, though. It is kind of funny to see Byrd homer in his 2nd AB off the d.l., off of one of the best pitchers in baseball, after all the hue and cry over how stupid Ron Washington had to have been to have Byrd pinch hit in a key situation in his first AB off the d.l.

Gil LeBreton has a column up discussing the Rangers suddenly looking like contenders, after everyone had written the team off.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

On the one hand

I feel like the luck can’t last, the pitching will come back to earth, the team’s really not that good. On the other hand I feel like if the rotation starts to get healthy maybe they can keep pitching at a league average level at least. If they can do that, this offense may just be good enough…

All in all, it still seems that too many things have to keep going just right for the team to be in contention in July/August. And I shudder to think that if the team is 4 or 5 games back of a weak division leader, it will be very tempting to make a big trade. I’d rather they hold onto their prospects this year, unless a very friendly deal is available that gives the team a possible core piece for the next few years.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 18, 2008 11:40 AM CDT 0 recs

4-5 games back...

I doubt they’d make a “win now” move.

The only exception I could see would be for a guy under team control for a number of years, who fits in the “win in 2009 and 2010” model. See, e.g., Roy Oswalt.

by Adam J. Morris on May 18, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

Lincecum...

Would ya?

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

If there's anyone I'd want to trade for

Lincecum is it.

Picking a random blog comment and wielding it as a club to bash "blogs" is like picking a random romance novel off an airport bookstore shelf and saying, "This book sucks. Fuck you, Tolstoy -- your medium is worthless!" - Ken Tremendous

by TheBZA on May 18, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hank + Hurley...

+ who would get those talks started. The Giants need offense. Molina is thier catcher, so would you do a Hank + Hurley + Laird (or would it take Salty)? It would be tough for me to give up Hurley and Salty in the same deal. I would be curious as to what the Giants would ask for him, or if they would even make him available.

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

by slc ranger on May 18, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hank + Hurley + Laird

= fleecing.

"When I am pissed off, I get angry." - Miles 5/06/08

by Chase Irwin on May 18, 2008 1:51 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yeah

You have to go much higher.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

And I shudder to think that if the team is 4 or 5 games back of a weak division leader, it will be very tempting to make a big trade.

You and me both.

by philkid3 on May 18, 2008 11:42 AM CDT 0 recs

Doesn't scare me.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 11:44 AM CDT up 0 recs

Why not?

You’re not worried the Rangers won’t knee jerk and think they’re a better team now than they really are, or you trust the front office fully?

by philkid3 on May 18, 2008 11:46 AM CDT up 0 recs

Well, at least

now they have a lot more room for error when trading prospects. I just have my doubts that anyone who would really benefit the team for more than a few months is going to be available.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 18, 2008 11:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

Well

If the keep this up till the time of the trade deadline, then they ARE a better team than any of us thought they were.

As such, I wouldn’t be adverse to the idea of bringing somebody(s) in for the long haul. But I share t ball’s feelings below, and I’d rather see a big trade in the offseason for a starter. I’m not talking about a Carlos Lee rental.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 11:51 AM CDT up 0 recs

Er "above" now.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 11:52 AM CDT up 0 recs

Well, I'm sure our FO is smarter than the Mariners.

But I would worry about them pulling the same mistake the Mariners did in not reckognizing a fluke when they see it. Other teams do the same. I’m scared we’ll be the kind of team that finishes, say, five out of the division but beats its pythagrean by 10 games and sells the farm for one starter, thinking the time is now and that’s all it will take to get over the hump.

As T Ball said, though, we do have more margin for error, which is a plus.

by philkid3 on May 18, 2008 11:56 AM CDT up 0 recs

True.

And the Seattle comparison is a good one, I think.

I certainly didn’t mean a Bedard-type, though. I was thinking more of a still-unproven, highly talented young guy.

For instance, would you be upset if we traded for a Matt Garza type (not that he’s available) even if it came at the expense of Hurley/Teagarden/Salty + whatever at the trade deadline?

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 12:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

And yes

I know that’s not typically the way deadline deals go, but for hypothetical purposes I’m curious.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 12:06 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'd be fine with that

Garza would be:
A. Young.
B. Cheap and under whichever team’s control for a while
C. Relatively ML tested.

That’s not the kind of deal you’d be concerned about though. I’d be concerned about 2 kinds of deals.

1. Matt Holliday kind of deal, where you’re getting a top 5 player at his position for a season and a half. You’d have to give up half the farm and chances are you’re not going to re-sign him.
2. Adam Dunn kind of deal, where you get him for the rest of the season. I have no interest in a rental, and I think JD is aware that the team is overachieving to a point where it’s not feasible to give up prospects for rentals.

by LiamP on May 18, 2008 12:16 PM CDT up 0 recs

Just to probe further

Would you give up Feliz, Davis/Ramirez, and Hurley (plus something else if necessary) for Holliday if you knew that he’d re-sign?

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

Assuming.

A. The package (Feliz, Ramirez, Hurley) is that cheap.
B. Holliday resigns for what he’s asking (~4yrs, 80mil)

Yes, mainly because you’d be getting Holliday on the cheap with that package. In return you get a lineup that starts with Kinsler, Young, Hamilton, and Holliday.

Done.

by LiamP on May 18, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

Well

You’re probably right that the package is too cheap. I’m just not sure that he’s as good as Tex was, so I don’t want to assume that he should bring the exact same package in return.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think Holliday is better than Tex offensively

Defensively, no.

I am concerned about his home/away splits (his OPS has been consistently ~200-300 points better at Coors), but I still think he’s an incredible player.

by LiamP on May 18, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

I know you weren't asking me...

But, No, I wouldn’t.

If I really thought he was a .315/.397/.525/.921 player like hsi overall numbers this year suggest… then, yah, I’m pretty sure I’d do that deal if we were in the thick of the race this summer. That’s freaking beastly.

But his home/road splits throw me for a loop. They’re absolutely frightening.

This year:
Home: .357/.430/.686/1.116
Road: .283/.371/.402/.774

Career:
Home: .363/.426/.663/1.089
Road: .274/.336/.444/.780

That’s a ridiculous split. I don’t know what to make of it.

The 40 trumps all!!!

by thedirkatron on May 18, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

Jinx?

by LiamP on May 18, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

Me either.

by brettgardner on May 18, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

Concur

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

by slc ranger on May 18, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

No, not really.

My worry isn’t about any move, it’s about bad moves.

by philkid3 on May 18, 2008 12:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

To clarify

I am certainly not a hold onto all prospects kind of guy. I just don’t want them to waver from the plan, and I definitely don’t want to see good prospects go somwhere else for just a two-month rental.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 18, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up 0 recs

I don't believe in holding on to all prospects, either.

But I think you hold on to them pretty much until you’re ready to compete. If we show that level of ability this season AND it’s not flukey or luck, alright then (as long as it’s not a rental, as you said). I worry about them mortgaging the future based on lucky over-performance. I don’t know yet if that’s something this front office is above or not.

by philkid3 on May 18, 2008 11:58 AM CDT up 0 recs

Big time game today!

by Agreen07 on May 18, 2008 12:11 PM CDT 0 recs

On trading at the deadline...

If it is a rental ( like Carlos Lee a few years back) it needs to be just like that trade. No major prospects changed hands….it was basically spare parts with room for improvement for a rent-a-player.

I am sure (as always) we would be in the hunt if any solid starting pitcher with a good number of years of service was made available…but that is much easier to do in the off-season such as Beckett and Bedard.

The one thing I could also see JD doing is dealing a position for prospects, and then turning around and trading to fill the position he just made vaccant….My example of this would be Hank Blalock. If a team was willing to offer up a pretty signifigant prospect or a player that could help us down the stretch(like a #2 starter) for a package involving Blalock..I could see JD dealing Hank, and then turning around and trading for a lesser fill in like Eric Hinske or Mike Lamb (just examples)
I would question what this would do to the so called “chemistry” considering Hank is a big part of the clubhouse….

by clinton33 on May 18, 2008 12:49 PM CDT 0 recs

Of course I post this and....

now Hank is moving to first base….lol

great timing!

by clinton33 on May 18, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

Joe Morgan is an idiot

Quoted from FJM with their commentary:

Andy (Chicago, IL): Should Josh Hamilton be at the top of the list of people getting consideration so far for AL MVP? He looks like he could be a triple crown threat and it would be pretty hard to say that another player was more valuable to their team at this point than Hamilton had been.
Joe Morgan: At this point, most of it is a matter of a couple of months. The Rangers aren’t leading their division. The MVP has to come from a team that helps his team win.

Ken Tremendous Because the “V” stands for “VictoryMachine.” The M stands for “MostWinsByA.” The P stands for “Peace Out, Y’All!”

by TheBZA on May 18, 2008 1:06 PM CDT 0 recs